HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05 ApplicationOctober 18, 2005
Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC
Attn: Charles Maddox
117 E. Piccadilly St., Ste. 200
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: REZONING #11 -05, CARPERS VALLEY
Dear Chuck:
This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting
of October 12, 2005. The above- referenced application was approved to rezone 281.5 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for Residential and Commercial
Uses, with Proffers, said Proffers reflecting the revisions which were dated and accepted by the Board of
Supervisors on October 12, 2005. The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate
81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and
The Ravens Subdivision, on the north side of the Airport, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is
identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 64 -A -82, 64 -A -83, 64- A -83A, 64 -A -86, 64 -A -87,
64- A -87A.
The proffer that was approved as a part of this rezoning application is unique to this property and is
binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your
records; the proffer is dated October 12, 2005.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this
rezoning application. The Department looks forward to working with you and the applicants during
the development of this project.
Sindjerely,
Er R. Lawence
Planning Director
ERL/bhd
AD
TY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665 -5651
FAX: 540/665 -6395
cc: Gene Fisher, Shawnee Magisterial District Supervisor
June Wilmot, Shawnee Magisterial District Commissioner
Robert A. Morris, Shawnee Magisterial District Commissioner
Jane Anderson, Real Estate
Richard Donna Dick, 1600 Millwood Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
Constance Tjoumas Gregory Coverstone, 334 Highbanks Rd., Stephenson, VA 72656
John G. Russell, 111, 407 S. Washington St. Winchester, VA 22601
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 07/20/05 Recommended Approval with Proffers
and Conditions
Board of Supervisors: 08/10/05 Postponed at Applicant's Request
09/14/05 Postponed at Applicant's Request
10/12/05 Pending
APPROVED
PROPOSAL: To rezone 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned
Community) District for Residential and Commercial Uses.
LOCATION: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side
of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens
Subdivision.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64 -A -82, 64 -A -83. 64- A -83A, 64 -A -86, 64 -A -87, 64 -A -87A
PROPERTY ZONING USE:
Zoned: (Rural Areas) District
0
North: Zoned RP(Residential Performance)
South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas)
East: Zoned MI (Light Industrial) and
MH1 (Mobile Home Community)
West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and
B2 (Business General)
REZONING APPLICATION #11 -05
CARPERS VALLEY
Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors
Prepared: October 4, 2005
Staff Contact: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE:
Use: Golf Course /Club /Undeveloped
Use: Single Family Residential
Use: Regional Airport
Use: Industrial and Residential
Use: Regional Airport and Office
PROPOSED USES: 785 Residential units 550 Residential units (revised proffer 10/04/05) and a
143 acre Employment Center
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 2 of 17
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The sentence, "Coverstone shall be completed in accordance with
the foregoing road phasing schedule", was suddenly added, which would seem to indicate that
regardless if the GSA moves in, Coverstone will only be developed as two lanes after 451 dwellings,
etc. The whole point of this section was to assure that Coverstone would be fully constructed to serve
GSA traffic; please remove this sentence to restore the intent of the section. I understand that there is a
new TIA that reflects the lack of a connection to Arbor Ct. Please provide a copy at your earliest
convenience. Similarly, although we were told that the right -of -way connection to Prince Frederick was
"in the bag", we still have no indication that this has been acquired. We either need some assurance
that you've got the right -of -way, or prove (via TIA) that it's not necessary (and lose the eminent domain
section, since there's no longer a point in it being there). (E -mail from Scott Alexander of VDOT to
Chuck Maddox, dated July 1, 2005.)
Fire Marshal: Extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of
Frederick County Code Section 90 -4. Fire hydrants shall be set at three feet from the curb. Access
requirements shall meet the minimum requirements of NFPA 1141. Plan approval recommended.
Public Works Department: See letter from Ed Strawsnyder dated June 27, 2005
Frederick County Dept. of Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment at the time
of site plan and subdivision review.
Frederick Winchester Service Authority: Considering the size and multi -use of the property, it is
extremely hard to evaluate the impact with the limited amount of information provided. The applicant
makes claims of capacity without any projections being provided. 1 would estimate that a project of this
size could generate between 300,000 and 420,000 gallons per day. I believe that this flow will by -pass
the Abrams Creek Interceptor and be delivered to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility through a
proposed regional pumping station. Based on already committed flows to the Opequon facility and
pending final regulations regarding nutrient discharge limits or caps, capacity at OWRF may be limited.
At present without major upgrading of the treatment process and assignment of sufficient nutrient loads
to provide for an expanded facility capacity, availability is questionable.
Sanitation Authority: 1 review No comment.
Department of Parks Recreation: The Master Development Plan references a trail system,
community pool and clubhouse. However, the development should meet all open space and
recreational unit ordinances as required by the county. The monetary proffer would appear to be
acceptable to offset the impact of the development.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the
proposed 500 town houses and 500 multi family units will yield 65 high school students, 80 middle
school students and 230 elementary school students for a total of 385 new students upon build -out.
Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 3 of 17
student enrollments exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project
and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the
area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student
enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered
during the approval process.
Winchester Regional Airport: See letter from Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director, dated July
18, 2005; letter to Renny Manuel from Randall P. Burdette, Director, Virginia Department of
Aviation, dated July II, 2005; two letters to Renny Manuel from Joseph B. Delia, Airport Engineer
of Washington Airports District Office, dated July 1, 2005 and July 10, 2002.
Frederick County Attorney: See letter from Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., Esquire, dated July 11, 2005
Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the property rezoning, it appears that the
proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal
review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. As you have indicated in your impact statement,
according to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the
property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National
Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields
that this proposed rezoning would directly impact.
Planning Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the
subject parcels as being zoned R -1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re- mapped from R-
1 to A -2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative
(Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's
agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District
upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989.
The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re- mapping of the subject property
and all other A -1 and A -2 zoned land to the RA District.
2) Location
The subject parcels are located on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50/17 East) across
from the Ravens and Miller Heights subdivisions and adjacent to the Prince Frederick Office
Park and the Winchester Regional Airport. The VDOT functional classification system
identifies Millwood Pike as a major arterial roadway. The land uses abutting the subject site to
the east and west are industrial and office, respectively, with the Winchester Regional Airport
adjacent to the south and single family residential uses located across Millwood Pike to the
north.
3) Intended Use
The applicant proposes the development of a mixed use project; a residential and employment
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 4 of 17
center. The project would be anchored by roughly 143 acres of commercial uses, initially
reserved for the development of federal govemment facilities. These commercial uses would be
complemented by moderate to high density residential uses. Through the proffer statement, the
project would be limited to 785 residential units 550 residential units (revised proffer dated
10/04/05)
Staff Comment: The applicant has utilized the R -4 District designation in an effort to
maximum residential development opportunities while also providing for significant non-
residential uses. While R -4 is intended for a planned community, this project is not unlike a
traditional RP and Commercial /Industrial rezoning application, where the uses are clearly
separate from one another.
Comprehensive Policy Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1 -1]
The six properties included with this rezoning request are all located within the boundaries of
the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. The properties are located wholly within the Urban
Development Area (UDA). The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan envisions the area
comprised by the subject parcels as developing with business /office land use. The Plan
indicates that this planned land use designation is appropriate given the proximity of the area to
the Winchester Regional Airport and the Interstate 81 interchange and the conduciveness of
such locations to non residential development. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6 -19, 6 -21)
The subject parcels are also located within the boundaries of the Airport Support Area that
surrounds the Winchester Regional Airport. This area comprises a zone of influence for airport
operations wherein new residential land use is discouraged due to the prevalence of aircraft
noise and the consequent potential for use incompatibilities. The development of business and
industrial land uses is promoted within the Airport Support Area to minimize such use conflicts
and ensure the feasibility of future airport expansion. However, in cases where residential
development is permitted within the Airport Support Area, aviation easements and other
protective measures should be considered to safeguard airport operations. (Comprehensive
Policy Plan, p. 6 -61, 6 -63)
Adopted economic policies stipulate that a business climate must be supported in Frederick
County that is conducive to economic activity and orderly economic growth. Critical to the
attainment of this goal is effective land use planning. Diverse locations for business and
industry must be identified that are capable of accommodating the access and infrastructure
needs of such uses while simultaneously ensuring their functional and aesthetic compatibility
with surrounding uses. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 4 -1, 4 -4, 4 -5)
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 5 of 17
The planned road network included in the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan identifies a
collector road system which provides for an east -west linkage. This planned east -west collector
road should also provide for linkages to the north coinciding with Inverlee Way (a planned
north -south major collector road). These planned road network linkages would both relieve
some pressure from the existing 522/50/81 interchange area, as well as to act as a connector
between the various parcels that would otherwise have utilized Route 50 as their sole means of
ingress and egress. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6- 19,6 -21)
Planning Staff Comment:
While the Comprehensive Policy Plan clearly indicates future uses on the subject parcels to be
business and office uses, the applicant suggests that there could be an opportunity to provide
for transitional residential uses to the existing Single Family (The Ravens) to the north.
Transitional residential uses might include moderate density housing (attached single family
and multi family), which would lessen conflicts and impacts associated with locating detached
single family uses adjacent to non residential uses. Ifsuch transitional residential uses are to
be considered, all efforts must be made to distance the residential uses from the airport
property.
The Zoning Ordinance states that the residential density in the R -4 Zoning District shall not
exceed a gross density of 4 units per acre. The subject proposal would enable 785 residential
dwellings 550 residential dwellings (revised proffer dated 10/04/05) to be constructed on 115
acres, which results in a net density of 4,8 4.8 units per acre.
5) Site Suitability/Environment
The subject parcels contain a variety of environmental features to include areas of flood plain,
wetlands, steep slopes, and woodlands.
A. Flood Plains: Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood
Insurance Study Map for Frederick County prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Community Panel #510063-0115B, effective date July 17,
1978. The majority of the site is located in Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of
minimal flooding outside of the 100 -year flood plain. As reported by the applicants,
100 -year flood plain, Flood Zone A, exists coincident with Sulfur Spring Run, which
traverses the frontage of the site, roughly parallel to Route 50. The applicant indicated
that disturbance will be limited to entrance improvements. Any disturbance within the
designated flood plain area will be subject to the requirements of the Floodplain District
(FP) provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Wetlands: The site includes four identified wetland features, all of which are man-made
ponds associated with the existing golf course use. Pursuant to the environmental
standards of the Zoning Ordinance, disturbance of wetland areas is not permitted.
Exceptions to this prohibition may be granted by the zoning administrator to allow
disturbance of small portions of wetland areas to facilitate conservation, recreation,
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 6 of 17
and /or the placement of utilities and roads. It is noted that the identified wetland areas
may be preserved through their use as project design features. Such issues may be
adequately addressed during the Master Development Plan process.
C. Soils and Steep Slopes: The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County.
Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-
Berks- Blairton soil association, which is the predominant association on land located
east of Interstate 81. As reported by the applicant, map sheet #36 of the Soil Survey
reveals that the site is comprised of nine distinct soil types. With the exception of a pit
area containing fill materials, all of the soil types identified on the site are suitable for
development. It is noted that the Weikert- Berks Blairton soil association presents some
limitations to site development due to a seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and
slope. The management of such characteristics must be demonstrated through the site
engineering process associated with subsequent development applications for the
proposed project.
D. Woodlands: The ravine areas present on the site also contain the majority of identified
woodland resources. As the location of the woodland areas generally corresponds with
steep slope areas, it is reasonable to expect the preservation of substantial portions of
identified woodlands to maintain natural stabilization of the protected slopes. The
applicants propose such preservation, but also note that some disturbance will occur to
create buildable lots and to implement proffered transportation improvements and the
stormwater management system. The site engineering process associated with
subsequent land development applications must address woodland resources on the site
and demonstrate that disturbance levels conform with applicable Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
6) Potential Impacts
Steep slopes (areas of 25% slope or greater) exist along the frontage of the site and
adjacent to two ravines that drain the site to Sulfur Spring Run. The applicants are
proposing some disturbance of these areas to implement proffered transportation
improvements, as well as to implement the planned stormwater management system.
Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, any such disturbance or regrading shall be limited to
no more than 25% of the area comprised of steep slopes. The location and scope of the
steep slopes identified on the site do not compromise the suitability of the site for
development. The site engineering process associated with subsequent land
development applications must address the steep slope conditions on the site and
demonstrate that disturbance levels conform with applicable Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
A. Transportation
The applicant has stated that the Carpers Valley project will be served by a multi -model
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 7 of 17
transportation network designed to safely and efficiently accommodate automobile, bicycle and
pedestrian traffic. The transportation improvement program proffered will interconnect the
various uses planned within the project, and further integrate the project with the surrounding
community. The implementation of this program will occur in phases structured to coincide
with the introduction of land uses on the site, as specified by proffer.
Access to the subject parcels would be a single entrance on Route 50 at Sulfur Springs Road;
and an entrance onto Prince Frederick Drive. These two entrance points would be linked by a
major collector road "Coverstone Drive with a hiker/biker trail running parallel. The revised
proffer dated 10/04/05 enables the preservation of the existing gold course entrance as a
right -in right-out. This proffer revision was not included in the TIA consideration.
The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application calculated transportation impacts
based upon the following development program:
Residential 487 multi family units and 263 townhouses 750 dwelling units)
e Office: 1,200,000 square feet (Scenario #1— office and residential)
Retail: 620,000 square feet (Scenario #2 retail and residential)
Using traffic generation figures from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. 6 Edition, the applicant
projects traffic impacts for the development in terms of two phases that correspond with years
2008 and 2010. For the purposes of this TIA, 2010 represents when build out will occur. Two
scenarios have been modeled to reflect the potential use of the property for office and /or retail.
The TIA indicates that at project build out, the planned uses will result in the generation of
14,405 ADT (Scenario #1) and 27,598 ADT (Scenario #2). The infrastructure policies of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan stipulate that new development should only occur if roads adjacent
to and within new development will function at Level of Service (LOS) Category "C" or better.
In each scenario, the applicant has proffered to implement the necessary improvements to
maintain LOS C at the key identified intersections scoped in the TIA.
The intersections studied include: Route 50 at Prince Frederick Drive; Prince Frederick Drive at
Costello Drive; Prince Frederick Drive at future Coverstone Drive; Route 50 at future
Coverstone Drive /Sulfur Spring Road; and Route 50 at Victory Road. The proffered
improvements include: signalization and lane enhancements.
In addition to the intersection improvements, the applicant has proffered to construct a four lane
raised median major collector road "Coverstone Drive linking Sulfur Springs Road to Prince
Frederick Drive through the subject parcels, implementing a planned collector road The
applicant has also proffered monetary contributions to extend Coverstone Drive west to intersect
with a future realigned Route 522, if and when the necessary right -of -way is available.
The applicant has proffered to eliminate the existing median crossover on Millwood Pike at the
Carpers Valley Golf Course entrance and to establish no new connections to Route 50 other
than the extension of Sulfur Spring Road onto the subject parcels such extension would be
called Coverstone Drive.
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 8 of 17
Staff comments and issues.
The TIA does not reflect the proffered access proposal to continue use of Golf Course
entrance (revised proffer dated 10/04/05). This may alter the true TIA results. As of October
4, 2005, staff has not received a VDOT comment on the revised proffer statement as it relates
to transportation.
The applicant has not secured all the necessary right of ways to facilitate the TIA identified
road improvements. By proffer (sec proffered condition 15.8), the applicant has stated that if
unable to secure the off site right of way required for the completion ofroad improvements, the
"their powers of eminent domain) is implemented to secure the necessary right of way.
Proffered condition has been removed from proffer revision 10/04/05.
Pursuant to adopted transportation policy, roads located adjacent to and within new
development are expected to operate at no less than a Level of Service "C" (Comprehensive
Policy Plan, p. 7 -5). As noted above, the transportation improvements proffered by the
applicants achieve this standard with each phase of development, if the necessary right -of -way
is secured by the applicant.
B. Sewer and Water
The applicant states that the existing golf course use is served by an 8" sewer line that ties into
the 12" sewer main located on the south side of Millwood Pike along the frontage of the site.
This infrastructure will be expanded pursuant to Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA)
requirements to serve the entire site and enable gravity flow to the existing main. The ultimate
sewage conveyance impact at project build -out is projected to be 302,500 gallons per day
(GPD).
The applicant notes that a 12" water main currently extends through the central portion of the
site. The proposed development would connect directly to this existing line pursuant to FCSA
requirements. The applicants report that FCSA has indicated that sufficient water capacity
exists to serve the project.
C. Historic Resources
As reported by the applicants, the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey includes one
structure located on the site, which is identified as the Heishland House 34- 1176). However,
this structure is neither included on the list of potentially significant resources nor is it identified
as eligible for eventual inclusion on the state or national register of historic places. Moreover,
pursuant to the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of
Virginia, the subject site is not included in any battlefield study area and does not contain any
core battlefield resources.
D. Community Facilities
The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model projects a net positive fiscal
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 9 of 17
impact from the project at project build -out. Failure to phase in the non residential land uses
could result in a negative fiscal impact as the fiscal benefits of the non residential land uses
would not be realized. As such, the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $2,637
per residential unit to mitigate the potential negative fiscal impacts.
Staff comments and issues:
This mixed use project, al build -out, could provide for a net positive capital facilities fiscal
impact to the County. If the non residential phase of the project does not materialize, and the
project is built solely as a 785 residential unit development, the per unit capital, facilities fiscal
impact is projected to be $4,174.
E. Permitted Uses
The zoning ordinance permits various uses within the R -4 Zoning District. The applicant has
proposed the development of residential and non residential areas. A Design and Development
Standards manual has been proffered which introduces various housing types which would be
unique to this project: stacked townhouses and 24 -unit condominium and apartment buildings
are just a sampling of the new housing options. Revised proffer dated 10 /4/05 excluded the
stocked townhouses, yet the Design and Development Standards manual continues to detail
such housing.
The R -4 Zoning District also permits the various non residential uses associated with the B1,
B2, B3, and M1 zoning districts. While the intent of this application is to promote the site as an
employment center, with aspects of office and commercial uses, the application does not
prohibit the possibility of introducing industrial uses to the area.
Staff comment and issues: The R -4 District provides maximum flexibility intended to offer the
developer an opportunity to design a unique community. Sans creativity, the R -4 District is not
unlike the traditional RP, Bs, and Ms districts where all uses in the underlying zoning district
are permitted. The applicant is encouraged to consider establishing prohibitions of such uses
that are not appropriate nor intended for this residential and once project.
5) Proffer Statement Dated June 24, 2005, revised October 4, 2005
It is noted that the proffer statement for Carpers Valley is extensive, involving proffered
conditions which include a design manual and three modification requests. The proffer
statement is fundamentally dependant upon the regulatory flexibility sought through the
modification document. The design manual introduces new housing types, such as
significantly larger apartment buildings, and stacked townhouses. (Stacked townhouses are
not specifically permitted by the proffer statement, but are described in the Design and
Development Standards manual, revised proffer 10 /4/05. The applicant should clarify
whether this /rousing type is proposed for this project.)
Given the importance of these requests to the applicant's proffer statement and, therefore, the
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page l0 of 17
overall rezoning proposal, staff has provided a detailed discussion concerning each request.
Modifications Request included within the Design and Development Standards manual
Per Section 165 -72.0, of the County Code, an applicant may request modifications to
provisions of the Code. Such modifications may be sought to enable implementation of a
design and /or land use concept beneficial to the community that would not otherwise be
permitted by the existing ordinance. The applicant has requested three modifications to
certain provisions of the Frederick County Code.
Modification #1 165 -68. Rezoning Procedure
The R4 District requirements stipulate that a complete Master Development Plan (MDP) shall
be submitted with an application for R4 zoning. The master development plan review
procedures must be completed concurrently with the consideration of the rezoning, and must be
included as part of the rezoning application.
The applicant is requesting modification of this request to allow submission of a proffered
Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at the time of rezoning instead of the complete MDP.
The GDP would identify the relationship of the project site to the surrounding transportation
network and adjoining land uses. Moreover, the GDP would provide a general layout for the
proposed development, organizing the entire acreage into land bays identified for either
residential or non residential land uses. The applicant would submit the MDP application for
review subsequent to rezoning approval, at which time greater detail concerning land bay
development would be provided
If Modification #1 is approved, a proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) will be
processed with this application instead of a detailed Master Development Plan (MDP). MDP
submission would follow rezoning approval pursuant to the application sequence typical for
development in other zoning districts as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Staff Comment: The applicant has included a proffered Generalized Development
Plan (GDP) with this application and is seeking the requested modification pursuant to
discussions with staff The level of detail required with a complete Master Development Plan
(MDP) is difficult to provide with a rezoning application when considering a project of the
scope and scale of Carpers Valley, especially when the potential federal facility is considered.
A proffered GDP will effectively represent the overall development concept and can sufficiently
guide the implementation of proffered conditions via subsequent development applications.
Modification #2 165 -71. Mixture of Housing Types Required
The R4 District requirements stipulate that no more than 40% of the residential land area in a
planned residential community shall consist of duplexes, multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link
townhouses, townhouses, or garden apartments or any combination of said housing types. The
Zoning Ordinance promotes a residential mix dominated by single family detached housing
types.
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 11 of 17
The applicant is requesting that this standard be modified to allow housing types identified by
the zoning ordinance and the proffer statement (Design and Development Standards). The
residentially designated areas of the project would be able to develop without limitation to the
percentage or ratio of any given housing type. The development of single family attached
(Townhouses) and multi family dwellings would be the predominant housing type in Carpers
Valley.
If Modification #2 is approved, the project housing type mix will not be regulated by ordinance
nor proffered conditions. This will provide the applicant the greatest flexibility to design and
develop the housing types most appropriate for the market.
Planning Staff Comment: The current requirement of S 165 -71 ensures that single family
detached dwellings will comprise a minimum of 60% of the residential land area in a
planned residential community. As proposed by the applicant, the entire residential site
could be developed into the highest density residential housing type enabled by the zoning
ordinance (16 units per building garden apartments al 10 units per acre). The proffer
statement limits the use of the 24- units- per building multi family unit described in the
proffered Design and Development Standard manual to occupy no more than 50 percent of
the total market rate housing units
o Modification #3 165 -72.D. Commercial and Industrial Areas:
The R4 District requirements stipulate that a minimum of 10% of the gross area of a planned
residential community shall be used for business and industrial land uses, and that such uses
shall not exceed 50% of the gross land area. Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance requires that each
phase of a planned community development shall include a reasonable amount of non-
residential land uses. These requirements provide the necessary regulations to facilitate a
development with residential and employment which coexist, enabling not only a walkable
community, but also offer opportunities to place residential uses and commercial uses within the
same structure (i.e., retail on first floor, residential on 2nd and 3rd floors).
The applicant is requesting that these standards be modified to allow a maximum of 60% of the
total gross area to be used for business and commercial purposes. This area has been identified
as Land Bay 2 on the GDP.
If Modification #3 is approved, the applicant will be permitted to expand the commercial
development to occupy up to 60% of the project area; industrial uses would continue to be
limited to 50% of the project.
Proffered Conditions dated June 24, 2005 and revised October 4, 2005.
The following is a brief summation of the proffered conditions included with the
application.
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 12 of 17
1) Land Use
a) Establishes that market rate housing shall not exceed 550 dwelling units.
b) Establishes that the 24- unit per building multi family housing type will not exceed
more than 50% of the total dwelling units.
(Staff note: proffer does not limit the use of the traditional garden
apartment on more than 50% of the site, which is enabled by Modification
#2)
Workforce housing
a) Establishes the ability to develop up to 35 residential units for sale to families
with household incomes below the median income of the County.
built) Removed from application in revised proffer dated 10/4/05.
3) Reservation of Land for public use
a) Identifies and reserves for up to 2 years) land for acquisition for federal
b) government use
c) Identifies and reserves (for up to 8 years) land for acquisition by the Airport.
d) Identifies and dedicates approximately 10 acres for use as a National Guard
Armory
e) Identifies and dedicates approximately 9 acres for use as a public safety center
(added in revised proffer dated 10/4/05)
4) Phasing of the Development
a) Provides for limitation on the issuance of residential building permits.
Year 3 140 permits.
Year 4 140 permits.
Year 5 140 permits
Year 6 130 permits
Provides for enhanced recreation amenities with a community center, pool, and dog
park. These amenities would be constructed by the end of the 4` year of development.
6) Provides for hiker /biker trail adjacent to the planned major collector road
7) Provides for a per residential unit $2,637 monetary contribution to lessen projected
impacts on capital facilities
(Staff note: If the non residential phase of the project does not materialize,
and the project is built solely as a 750 residential unit development, the per
unit capital facilities fiscal impact is projected to be $4,174.
8) Provides for transportation improvements such as:
a) Tree -line 4 -lane raised median major collector road connecting the Sulfur
Springs Road /Route 50 intersection with a future intersection with Prince
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 13 of 17
Frederick Drive.
(Staff note: the tree lined street is in lieu of the County required Road
Efficiency Buffer)
b) No connections to Millwood Pike (Route 50) other than at the Sulfur Springs
Road intersection, and the preservation of the Golf Course right -in /right -out
entrance (added in revised proffer dated).
c) Traffic signal improvements at Sulfur Springs and Route 50; Costello and Prince
Frederick Drives; and Victory Lane and Millwood Pike (Route 50).
d) Future TIA and improvements to reflect changing uses of the property.
e) Provisions to enable the issuance of building permits for model homes and the
community center prior to base paving. Staff note: This conflicts with the
County's Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance requirement which does not
enable the issuance of building permits until significant road improvements
are completed.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 07/20/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This application is a request to rezone approximately 281.5 acres of RA -zoned property to the R4
District to facilitate development of a mixed use development consisting of785 dwelling units and 143
acres of business and office use opportunities. The Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically addresses
the planned land use of the subject parcels through the policies adopted with the Route 50 East Corridor
Land Use Plan. These policies recommend the establishment of business and office uses on the parcels.
The requested rezoning suggests that an employment center and transitional residential uses are an
appropriate use for the site based on the site's proximity to the Airport, the Prince Frederick Office
Park, and adjoining single family uses.
The R -4 Zoning District is intended to facilitate a planned unit development, where uses are
interspersed, and retail and residential uses intermingle. The Carpers Valley application is more similar
to a B2 and RP request, then a planned unit development. Yet, the proposal certainly attempts to create
a compatible product in a key developing corridor of the County.
Addressing the various agency concerns and issues is the responsibility of the applicant; VDOT and
Airport Authority have yet to offer support of the application. The applicant should be prepared to
address these agency issues, Planning staff comments, as well as all comments offered by the
Planning Commission.
In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning
request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular
attention to the following:
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 14 of 17
1) The Commission providing concurrence with VDOT that the transportation proffers offered
with the rezoning application are satisfactory.
2) The Applicant's satisfaction of all comments offered by the County Attorney.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 07/20/05 MEETING:
The following airport representatives were present to speak with the Commission: Mr. Mark K. Flynn,
Legal Counsel for the Winchester Regional Airport Authority; Mr. John Longnaker, engineer with Delta
Airport Consultants; Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director of the Winchester Regional Airport; Mr. Joe
Delia, The Federal Aviation Administration's Project Engineer for the Winchester Regional Airport;
and Mr. Randal P. Burdette, Director of the Virginia Department of Aviation. The primary concerns
raised by airport representatives included: opposition to the R4 Zoning designation due to its inclusion
of residential units and opposition to any rezoning request that would include dense housing within the
Airport Support Area; concern that continued residential encroachment would impact the viability and
future expansion of the airport and, eventually, it would have an affect on the airport's funding from the
FAA and the VDOA; the inability of the airport to accept the applicant's offer to purchase the reserved
acreage to the north because of development priorities on the south side of the runway that will require
considerable funding from the FAA/VDOA; if acreage to the north was purchased within the eight -year
time frame, it would require local funding (Frederick Co. and City of Winchester); regarding the
Coverstone Drive extension, the Rt. 522 realignment has not received FAA/VDOA approval; the
realignment of Rt. 522 is contingent on surveys and elevations yet to be conducted and must not
interfere with the airport's approach surfaces. Regarding the public safety building, the airport has
earmarked a five -acre site for a public safety building, however, an agreement has not been finalized, a
site plan has not been reviewed, nor has a lease been negotiated. If a lease is negotiated with Frederick
County, the airport would retain ownership of the land and it would not convey to Frederick County.
There were also concerns regarding the public safety building's 60 -foot right -of -way through the
airport's property.
Three citizens spoke in opposition to the rezoning request; their opposition was based on their view that
residential use was not compatible with the airport. They were concerned that residential encroachment
would affect the airport's viability and lead to its closing; they were concerned about safety for the
residences that would be constructed. One citizen, a partner in the adjacent Blue Ridge Industries,
spoke in favor of the rezoning. He rebuked statements that the airport was unsafe for adjacent
residential use and asked if having employees work in the adjacent commercial buildings would also be
considered unsafe. He considered the offer made by the applicant to reserve the acreage for eight years
as a tremendous value to the airport; he remarked that if corporate business was unwilling to step
forward to sign leases to fund the purchase of the acreage, or if the FAA/VDOA didn't consider it a
priority, then perhaps the land was not really needed. He also expressed disappointment that the Airport
Authority would hold 6,000 square feet hostage to the local land transportation needs. The applicant
believed their proposal had met the County's goal for land planning adjacent to the airport. The
applicant expressed the desire to negotiate with the airport; however, they believed that until a decision
was made on the land use issue, negotiations could not go forward.
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 15 of 17
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. APPROVAL):
NO: Watt, Gochenour, Straub
ABSTAIN: DeHaven, Wilmot
Discussion and comments by the Planning Commission included: The plan presented was good and
much improved over the previously- submitted plan; the plan presented the opportunity for growth
inside the UDA, as opposed to the rural areas; it may not be appropriate to place housing on land
planned for business /office use; no concrete determination has been made by the airport on an
acceptable distance for dwelling units from the runway; distance of dwelling units from the runway does
not in itself affect funding from the FAANDOA; the best use for this area is commercial; the plan
presented the opportunity for affordable housing; and, a significant amount of cooperation between the
developer and airport was needed to make the project work and would result in a win -win situation for
both parties, in addition to the County. One commissioner remarked that if tenants would choose not to
come in the second and third land bays, he would not be in favor of putting more housing within those
bays. Some of the commission members were not in favor of residential housing near the airport
because of its potential impact to the viability of the airport and for safety reasons; one commissioner
preferred to see the County's UDA and RA studies completed before approving the rezoning; a member
cited insufficient data on the quality /quantity of available water and possible DEQ limitations on
discharging into waterways that empty into the Chesapeake Bay.
A majority of the members of the Commission were in support of the overall plan for rezoning and
believed it was appropriate for this location and the timing was right. By a majority vote, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with the proffers and conditions discussed, as well
as the three proposed modifications requested by the applicant, as follows:
1) Modification #1: Submission of a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at rezoning, in lieu of
the Master Development Plan (MDP). (The MDP submission will follow rezoning approval,
prior to development of the property.)
2) Modification #2: Allowance of a Mixture of Housing Types; Single family attached
(townhouses) and multi family dwellings (apartments) would be predominant.
3) Modification #3: Allowance of a Maximum of 60% of Total Gross Area for Business and
Commercial Purposes.
Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas,
(Note: Commissioners Unger, Morris, and Light were absent from the meeting.)
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 16 of 17
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 8/10/05 MEETING:
Item was postponed at the applicant's request.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 9/14/05 MEETING:
Item was postponed at the applicant's request.
ACTIONS SINCE LAST BOARD OF SUPERVISOR'S MEETING:
The applicant submitted revised proffers dated October 4, 2005. In summary, these revised proffers:
Eliminate the previously proffered 35 unit Workforce housing provision;
Reduce the total residential units to 550 dwellings for the entire project;
Establish a four year phased build -out of the residential units, with residential unit
construction to begin not before 2007;
Eliminate of the stacked townhouse housing type. (Staff note: May require further
clarification to eliminate conflicts between the proffer statement and the Design and
Development Manual)
Introduce the preservation of the existing golf course entrance onto Route 50 as a right
in/right -out entrance;
Continue to offer a monetary contribution of $2,637 to mitigate projected impacts on capital
facilities. The Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model projects impacts of $4,174 per
residential dwelling unit; and,
Dedicate 9 acres site to accommodate a public safety building.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/12/05 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING:
This application is a request to rezone approximately 281.5 acres of RA -zoned property to the R4
District to facilitate development of a mixed use development consisting of 550 dwelling units and
approximately 143 acres of business and office use opportunities. The Comprehensive Policy Plan
specifically addresses the planned land use of the subject parcels through the policies adopted with the
Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. These policies recommend the establishment of business and
office uses on the parcels; residential uses on this site are not directly supported by the land use plan.
The requested rezoning suggests that an employment center and transitional residential uses are an
appropriate use for the site based on the site's proximity to the Airport, the Prince Frederick Office
Park, and adjoining single family uses.
The R -4 Zoning District is intended to facilitate a planned unit development, where uses are
interspersed, and retail and residential uses intermingle. The Carpers Valley application is more similar
to a B2 and RP request, then a planned unit development. Yet, the proposal certainly attempts to create
a compatible product in a key developing corridor of the County.
Addressing the various agency concerns and issues is the responsibility of the applicant; as of
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
October 4, 2005
Page 17 of 17
October 4, 2005, VDOT has yet to offer support of the revised proffer statement associated with this
rezoning application.
The applicant should be prepared to address these agency issues, Planning staff comments, as well
as all comments offered by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission considered this
rezoning request on July 20, 2005, in a slightly modified version, and did forward a
recommendation of approval.
CORPORATE:
Chantilly
VIRGINIA OFFICES:
Chantilly
Bridgewater
Fredericksburg
Leesburg
Richmond
Virginia Beach
Winchester
Woodbridge
LABORATORIES.
Chantilly
Fredericksburg
MARYLAND OFFICES:
Baltimore
Columbia
Frederick
Germantown
Hollywood
.Hunt Volley
WEST VIRGINIA
OFFICE:
Mortins6u rg
T 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchesie:, VA
22601
Patton Harrislikt Associates,pc
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
12 September 2005
Mr. John Riley
Frederick County Administrator
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
jKir. Eric Lawrence
Frederick County Planning
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Carpers Valley Rezoning
Rezoning Application #11 -05
Dear John Eric,
We hereby request a postponement of the public hearing and consideration of
approval of the above project until your October 12, 2005 Board meeting.
We intend to make changes to the project proffer statement and generalized plan
which will put the proposal in better form for review and will need this additional
time for this work.
Thank you for your action in this regard.
Sincerely yours,
PAT PO HARRIS t U AS 2 IATES
ng P.E senior Vice President
CEM /kf
cc: Mr. John Conrad
Mr. Jim Vickers
n
p \L,
II I� LI SEP 1 3 2005
PLAD_
;_F!C
CC :Nile
IE','_LCiPNIENT
07/29/05 15:36JFAX 7036E102161
JHF /ame
7
John H. Foote
t (703) 330 -7400 Ext 13
jfoote®mn.thelandlawycIS.com
Mr. John Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601 -5000
WALSH.COLUCCI
WALSH COLUCCI
LUBELEY EMRICH
TERPAK PC
July 29, 2005
RE: Carpers Valley Rezoning Application
Dear John:
As you know, this firm represents the applicants in connection with this rezoning
application. The Planning Commission has recommended approval and the matter would
ordinarily be scheduled for action at the Board in August.
My people are concerned that there remain issues related to this application which will
require additional time to resolve_ 1 believe you are familiar with these questions. Therefore, I
have been asked to request that this case be deferred until September and that no hearing be held
in August
Thank you for your kind attention to this
Sincerely yours,
cc: Eric Lawrence
Michael Ruddy
John Conrad
Chuck Maddox
WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY,
EMRI TERPAK, P.C.
xrtORNECS AT LAW
H. Foote
PRONE 703 6R0 6666 1 PAK 703 680 6067 1 W W W.TIIELANDLAWYERS.COM
GI,RN PANIC 1 1 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUM 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA Zt191.
ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 SLE 4700 a LOVDOVN OPPICR 703 7373633
Z002/002
Wind a'
yj i0•Ln
FRECERICKTCWNE GROUP
6 100A 5
IFOLDERICKTOWNEGROUP
64 2
Map Features
N Bridg es
MPnvtoh
N a as
lakesNUnhs N Dams
steams .v Retaining Walls
O nullalr9S
Ca r'"
O Parcels
Agricultural a FnreSta Districts
0 Muhle Church
Road Centerlines 0 Refuge Church
I I
South Frederick
N mils 0 300 600 1,200
As,
Feet
REZ 11 05
Carpers Valley
64 A 82, 83, 83A, 86, 87, 87A
64 A 100A, 100B
(64 -10- 1, 2)
NVindy I ill Li
FREDERICKTOWNE GROUP
riVPS too*
edY
Bodges
0
R IPS"' As Culverts P.rcels
L p"" AgrIcurtural Forestal Districts
Stearns Retaining Walls Daub]. church
0 sonth Road centerlines c Refuge Church
GE T„„ 0 soy Frederic
'M., Trails
REZ# 11 05
Carpers Valley
64 A 82, 83, 83A, 86, 87, 87A
200 64 A 100A, 100B
(64-10-1,2)
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of
the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester.
1. Applicants:
Name: Miller and Smith Land, Inc. Telephone: (703) 821 -2500
Address: 8401 Greensboro Drive, Suite 300
McLean Virginia 226102
Name: Miller and Smith Coverstone, LLC Telephone: (703) 821 -2500
Address: 8401 Greensboro Drive, Suite 300
McLean, Virginia 226102
2. Property Owners (if different than above)
Name: Richard G. and Donna Dick
Address: 1600 Millwood Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Name: JGR Three, LLC et als Telephone: (540) 662 -1287
c/o Richard G. Dick
Address: 1600 Millwood Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Name: Gregory L. Coverstone Telephone: (540) 662 -3149
Address: 334 Highbanks Road
Stephenson, Virginia 22656
Name: Constance L. Tjoumas
c/o Gregory L. Coverstone
Address: 334 Highbanks Road
Stephenson, Virginia 22656
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Telephone: (540) 662 -1287
Telephone: (540) 662 -3149
2 4 902,5 I, L
1
3. Contact person(s) if other than above
Name: Christopher M. Mohn
Patton Harris Rust Associates pc
Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Name: John H. Foote Telephone: (703) 680 -4664
Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich Terpak, P.C.
Address: Glen Park I
4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300
Prince William, Virginia 22192
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location Map
Plat
Deed of property
Verification of taxes paid
Ann Coverstone
Richard G. Dick
Donna C. Dick
Thomas A. Dick
Michael E. Dick
Cynthia Ann Pappas
Constance L. Tjoumas
John G. Russell III
Linda C. Russell
X
X
X
X
6. A) Current Use of the Property:
13) Proposed Use of the Property:
Agency Comments
Fees
Impact Analysis Statement
Proffer Statement
Telephone: (540) 667 -2139
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to
rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
Gregory L. Coverstone Ellen, LLC
JGR Three, LLC
LCR, LLC
Liberty Hill, LC
MDC Three, LLC
Miller and Smith Land, Inc.
Miller and Smith Coverstone, LLC
Susan Sanders, LLC
Golf Course /Club/Undeveloped
Mixed Use Employment Center
X
X
X
X
3
Name: Cynthia Ann Pappas
c/o Gregory L. Coverstone
Address: 2816 Denley Place
Silver Spring, Maryland 20906
Name: Ellen, LLC
c/o John G. Russell III
Address: 407 S. Washington Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Name: LCR, LLC
c/o Linda C. Russell
Address: 407 S. Washington Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Name: MDC Three, LLC
c/o John G. Russell III
Address: 407 S. Washington Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Name: Susan Sanders, LLC
c/o John G. Russell III
Address: 407 S. Washington Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Name: Liberty Hill, LC
c/o Richard G. Dick
Address: 1600 Millwood Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Name: Thomas A. Dick Telephone: (804) 330 -3139
Address: 3607 Lenox Forest Drive
Midlothian, Virginia 23113
Name: Timothy J. Dick Telephone: (404) 395 -8393
Address: 2758 Grove Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30319
Name: Michael E. Dick Telephone: (757) 645 -3071
Address: 221 East Tazewell Way
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
Telephone: (301) 949 -7055
Telephone: (540) 667 -4638
Telephone: (540) 667 -4638
Telephone: (540) 667 -4638
Telephone: (540) 667 -4638
Telephone: (540) 662 -1287
2
7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED.
PARCEL ID NUMBER
(Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision.
USE ZONING
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance
from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers).
The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the
south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road
4
Acres
Current Zoning
Zoning Requested
276.92
RA
R4
276.92
Total acreage to be rezoned
Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the
applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the
planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning
District as described on page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification /Location: Parcel Identification Number: 64 -A -82; 64 -A -83; 64- A -83A;
64 -A -86; 64 -A -87; 64- A -87A;
64-A-89; 64-A-100A;
64 -A -1008; 64 -10 -1; 64 -10 -2
Districts
Magisterial: Shawnee High School: Sherando
Fire Service: Millwood Middle School: James Wood
Rescue Service: Millwood Elementary School: Armel
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested.
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed:
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family Home N/A Townhome 500 Multi Family 250
Non Residential Lots NA Mobile Home NA Hotel Rooms NA
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Office 100,000 Service Station NA
Retail 100,000 Manufacturing NA
Restaurant NA Flex Warehouse N/A
Other N/A
5
12. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick
County, Virginia. l (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site
inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front
property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of
Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right -of -way until the
hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to
the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant(s) u icy k14c4 Date 5/20/05
Miller and S
Miller and Smith Cove one, LLC
MgiJAi,EtZ Date 5/20/05
6
Name
Property Identification Number (PIN)
Address
Name: Winchester Regional Airport
Property 64 -A -79
491 Airport Rd
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Winchester Regional Airport
64 -A -88
491 Airport Rd
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Glaize Bro, LC
64 -A -80J
P.O. Box 2598
Winchester, VA 22604
Name:
Property
Blue Ridge Industries
64 -A -80Q
P.O. Box 1847
Winchester, VA 22604
Name:
Property
Main of Winchester, LLC
64 -A -80K
1936 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
R G Warehouse, LLC
64 -A -80L
119 Arbor Ct
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Winchester Industrial Park, LLC
64 -A -81A
1936 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Winchester Industrial Park, LLC
64 -A -81
1936 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Raymond Tanya Long
64 -A -134
718 Chelsea Dr
Winchester, VA 22601
Name:
Property
Raymond Tanya Long
64 -A -133
718 Chelsea Dr
Winchester, VA 22601
Name:
Property
Terry W. Lois J. Ruffner
64 -A -132
112 Sulphur Spring Rd
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Perry Engineering Co., Inc.
64 -A -124
1945 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Perry Engineering Co., Inc.
64- A -123A
1945 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Perry Engineering Co., Inc.
64 -A -123
1945 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Adjoining Property Owners
Rezoning
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property
abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public
right -of -way, a private right -of -way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The
applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the
parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of
Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2'"' floor of the Frederick County
Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street.
7
Name:
Property
Potomac Edison Company
64- A -124A
10435 Downsville Pike
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Name:
Property
Trustees of the James Peyton Darlington Trust
64 -A -122
1543 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Lloyd Fisher c/o Mary E. Washington
64 -A -116
813 N 18th St
Harrisburg, PA 17103
Name:
Property
Raven Wing Homeowners Association
64G- 2 -1 -52A
P.O. Box 888
Winchester, VA 22604
Name:
Property
David W. Loy
64A- 7 -1 -15
1441 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Robert A. Frazier
64A- 7 -1 -14
1427 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Robert A. Frazier
64A- 7 -1 -13
1427 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
George G. Kelsa R. Lambert
64A- 7 -1 -12A
1411 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
George G. Kelsa R. Lambert
64A-7-1-11A
1411 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
George G. Kelsa R. Lambert
64A- 7 -1 -10A
1411 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Raven Wing Homeowners Association
64G- 2 -1 -63A
P.O. Box 888
Winchester, VA 22604
Name:
Property
Judy Belle Cook c/o Judy B. Rodgers
64A -7 -1 -8
178 Grand View Ln
Clearbrook, VA 22624
Name:
Property
Judy Belle Cook c/o Judy B. Rodgers
64A -7 -1 -7
178 Grand View Ln
Clearbrook, VA 22624
Name:
Property
Judy Belle Cook c/o Judy B. Rodgers
64A -7 -1 -6
178 Grand View Ln
Clearbrook, VA 22624
Name:
Property
Judy Belle Cook c/o Judy B. Rodgers
64A -7 -1 -5
178 Grand View Ln
Clearbrook, VA 22624
Name:
Property
Douglas A. Hartley
64A -7 -1 -4
100 Stanley Dr
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Douglas A. Hartley
64A -7 -1 -3
100 Stanley Dr
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
John H. Kaknis Christopher Brooks c/o John G. Kaknis
64A 7 1 2
730 N Hayfield Rd
Winchester, VA 22603
Name:
Property
John H. Kaknis Christopher Brooks c/o John G. Kaknis
64A -7 -1 -1
730 N Hayfield Rd
Winchester, VA 22603
Name:
Property
Helen J. Sempeles Trustee
64A -A -12
107 Roszel Rd
Winchester, VA 22601
Name:
Property
Winchester Outdoor
64A -A -13
355 S Potomac St
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Name:
Property
Mary K. Hockman
64 -A -84
104 Oak Side Ln
Winchester, VA 22603
Name:
Property
Mary K. Hockman
64 -A -85
104 Oak Side Ln
Winchester, VA 22603
8
Name:
Property
Marlow Investments, LC
64 -A -89A
707 N Commerce Ave
Front Royal, VA 22630
Name:
Property
Fredericktowne Group, LC c/o Richard Dick
64 -10 -2
1400 Millwood Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Property
Karen B. Barrett -Perry, et als
64 -10 -3
P.O. Box 807
Stephens City, VA 22655
Name:
Property
Prince Frederick Group, LC c/o James L. Mcilvaine, Jr.
64 A 89B
6231 Leesburg Pike, Ste 600
Falls Church, VA 22044
9
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 07/20/05 Recommended Approval with Proffers
and Conditions
Board of Supervisors: 08/10/05 Postponed at Applicant's Request
09/14/05 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned
Community) District for Residential and Commercial Uses.
LOCATION: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side
of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens
Subdivision.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64 -A -82, 64 -A -83, 64- A -83A, 64 -A -86, 64 -A -87, 64 -A -87A
PROPERTY ZONING USE:
Zoned: (Rural Areas) District Use: Golf Course /Club/Undeveloped
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE:
North: Zoned RP(Residential Performance)
South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas)
East: Zoned M1 (Light Industrial) and
MH1 (Mobile Home Community)
West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and
B2 (Business General)
REZONING APPLICATION #11 -05
CARPERS VALLEY
Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors
Prepared: September 6, 2005
Staff Contact: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director
Use: Single Family Residential
Use: Regional Airport
Use: Industrial and Residential
Use: Regional Airport and Office
PROPOSED USES: 785 Residential units and a 143 acre Employment Center
Rezoning 111 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The sentence "Coverstone shall be completed in accordance with
the foregoing road phasing schedule" was suddenly added, which would seem to indicate that regardless
if the GSA moves in, Coverstone will only be developed as 2 lanes after 451 dwellings, etc. The whole
point of this section was to assure that Coverstone would be fully constructed to serve GSA traffic;
please remove this sentence to restore the intent of the section. I understand that there is a new TIA that
reflects the lack of a connection to Arbor Ct. Please provide a copy at your earliest convenience.
Similarly, although we were told that the right -of -way connection to Prince Frederick was "in the bag
we still have no indication that this has been acquired. We either need some assurance that you've got
the right -of -way, or prove (via TIA) that it's not necessary (and lose the eminent domain section, since
there's no longer apoint in it being there). ('E-mail from Scott Alexander of VDOT to Chuck Maddox,
dated July 1, 2005.)
Fire Marshal: Extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of
Frederick County Code Section 90 -4. Fire hydrants shall be set at three feet from the curb. Access
requirements shall meet the minimum requirements of NFPA 1141. Plan approval recommended.
Public Works Department: See letter from Ed Strawsnyder dated June 27, 2005
Frederick County Dept. of Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment at the time
of site plan and subdivision review.
Frederick Winchester Service Authority: Considering the size and multi-use of the property, it is
extremely hard to evaluate the impact with the limited amount of information provided. The applicant
makes claims of capacity without any projections being provided. I would estimate that a project of this
size could generate between 300,000 and 420,000 gallons per day. 1 believe that this flow will by -pass
the Abrams Creek Interceptor and be delivered to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility through a
proposed regional pumping station. Based on already committed flows to the Opequon facility and
pending final regulations regarding nutrient discharge limits or caps, capacity at OWRF may be limited.
At present without major upgrading of the treatment process and assignment of sufficient nutrient loads
to provide for an expanded facility capacity, availability is questionable.
Sanitation Authority: I" review No comment.
Department of Parks Recreation: The Master Development Plan references a trail system,
community pool and clubhouse. However, the development should meet all open space and
recreational unit ordinances as required by the county. The monetary proffer would appear to be
acceptable to offset the impact of the development.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the
proposed 500 town houses and 500 multi- family units will yield 65 high school students, 80 middle
school students and 230 elementary school students for a total of 385 new students upon build -out.
Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 3
student enrollments exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project
and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the
area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student
enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered
during the approval process.
Winchester Regional Airport: See letter from Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director, dated July
18, 2005; letter to Renny Manuel from Randall P. Burdette, Director, Virginia Department of
Aviation, dated July 11, 2005; two letters to Renny Manuel from Joseph B. Delia, Airport Engineer
of Washington Airports District Office, dated July 1, 2005 and July 10, 2002.
Frederick County Attorney: See letter from Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., Esquire, dated July 11, 2005
Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the property rezoning, it appears that the
proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal
review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. As you have indicated in your impact statement,
according to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the
property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National
Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields
that this proposed rezoning would directly impact.
Planning Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the
subject parcels as being zoned R -1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re- mapped from R-
1 to A -2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative
(Zoning Amendment Petition #011 -80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's
agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District
upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989.
The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re- mapping of the subject property
and all other A -1 and A -2 zoned land to the RA District.
2) Location
The subject parcels are located on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50/17 East) across
from the Ravens and Miller Heights subdivisions and adjacent to the Prince Frederick Office
Park and the Winchester Regional Airport. The VDOT functional classification system
identifies Millwood Pike as a major arterial roadway. The land uses abutting the subject site to
the east and west are industrial and office, respectively, with the Winchester Regional Airport
adjacent to the south and single family residential uses located across Millwood Pike to the
north.
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 4
3) Intended Use
The applicant proposes the development of a mixed use project; a residential and employment
center. The project would be anchored by roughly 143 acres of commercial uses, initially
reserved for the development of federal government facilities. These commercial uses would be
complemented by moderate to high density residential uses. Through the proffer statement, the
project would be limited to 785 residential units.
Staff Comment: The applicant has utilized the R -4 District designation in an effort to
maximum residential development opportunities while also providing for significant non-
residential uses. While R -4 is intended for a planned community, this project is not unlike a
traditional RP and Commercial /Industrial rezoning application, where the uses are clearly
separate from one another.
Comprehensive Policy Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1 -1]
The six properties included with this rezoning request are all located within the boundaries of
the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. The properties are located wholly within the Urban
Development Area (UDA). The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan envisions the area
comprised by the subject parcels as developing with business /office land use. The Plan
indicates that this planned land use designation is appropriate given the proximity of the area to
the Winchester Regional Airport and the Interstate 81 interchange and the conduciveness of
such locations to non residential development. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6 -19, 6 -21)
The subject parcels are also located within the boundaries of the Airport Support Area that
surrounds the Winchester Regional Airport. This area comprises a zone of influence for airport
operations wherein new residential land use is discouraged due to the prevalence of aircraft
noise and the consequent potential for use incompatibilities. The development of business and
industrial land uses is promoted within the Airport Support Area to minimize such use conflicts
and ensure the feasibility of future airport expansion. However, in cases where residential
development is permitted within the Airport Support Area, aviation easements and other
protective measures should be considered to safeguard airport operations. (Comprehensive
Policy Plan, p. 6 -61, 6 -63)
Adopted economic policies stipulate that a business climate must be supported in Frederick
County that is conducive to economic activity and orderly economic growth. Critical to the
attainment of this goal is effective land use planning. Diverse locations for business and
industry must be identified that are capable of accommodating the access and infrastructure
needs of such uses while simultaneously ensuring their functional and aesthetic compatibility
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 5
with surrounding uses. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 4 -1, 4 -4, 4 -5)
The planned road network included in the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan identifies a
collector road system which provides for an east -west linkage. This planned east -west collector
road should also provide for linkages to the north coinciding with Inverlee Way (a planned
north -south major collector road). These planned road network linkages would both relieve
some pressure from the existing 522/50/81 interchange area, as well as to act as a connector
between the various parcels that would otherwise have utilized Route 50 as their sole means of
ingress and egress. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6- 19,6 -21)
e Planning Staff Comment:
While the Comprehensive Policy Plan clearly indicates future uses on the subject parcels to be
business and office uses, the applicant suggests that there could be an opportunity to provide
for transitional residential uses to the existing Single Family (The Ravens) to the north.
Transitional residential uses might include moderate density housing (attached single family
and multi family), which would lessen conflicts and impacts associated with locating detached
single family uses adjacent to non residential uses. If such transitional residential uses are to
be considered, all efforts must be made to distance the residential uses from the airport
property.
The Zoning Ordinance states that the residential density in the R -4 Zoning District shall not
exceed a gross density of 4 units per acre. The subject proposal would enable 785 residential
dwellings to be constructed on 115 acres, which results in a net density of 6.8 units per acre.
5) Site Suitability /Environment
The subject parcels contain a variety of environmental features to include areas of flood plain,
wetlands, steep slopes, and woodlands.
A. Flood Plains: Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood
Insurance Study Map for Frederick County prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Community Panel #510063-0115B, effective date July 17,
1978. The majority of the site is located in Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of
minimal flooding outside of the 100 -year flood plain. As reported by the applicants,
100 -year flood plain, Flood Zone A, exists coincident with Sulfur Spring Run, which
traverses the frontage of the site, roughly parallel to Route 50. The applicant indicated
that disturbance will be limited to entrance improvements. Any disturbance within the
designated flood plain area will be subject to the requirements of the Floodplain District
(FP) provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Wetlands: The site includes four identified wetland features, all of which are man -made
ponds associated with the existing golf course use. Pursuant to the environmental
standards of the Zoning Ordinance, disturbance of wetland areas is not permitted.
Exceptions to this prohibition may be granted by the zoning administrator to allow
disturbance of small portions of wetland areas to facilitate conservation, recreation,
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 6
and/or the placement of utilities and roads. It is noted that the identified wetland areas
may be preserved through their use as project design features. Such issues may be
adequately addressed during the Master Development Plan process.
C. Soils and Steep Slopes: The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County.
Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-
Berks- Blairton soil association, which is the predominant association on land located
east of Interstate 81. As reported by the applicant, map sheet #36 of the Soil Survey
reveals that the site is comprised of nine distinct soil types. With the exception of a pit
area containing fill materials, all of the soil types identified on the site are suitable for
development. It is noted that the Weikert- Berks Blairton soil association presents some
limitations to site development due to a seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and
slope. The management of such characteristics must be demonstrated through the site
engineering process associated with subsequent development applications for the
proposed project.
D. Woodlands: The ravine areas present on the site also contain the majority of identified
woodland resources. As the location of the woodland areas generally corresponds with
steep slope areas, it is reasonable to expect the preservation of substantial portions of
identified woodlands to maintain natural stabilization of the protected slopes. The
applicants propose such preservation, but also note that some disturbance will occur to
create buildable lots and to implement proffered transportation improvements and the
stormwater management system. The site engineering process associated with
subsequent land development applications must address woodland resources on the site
and demonstrate that disturbance levels conform with applicable Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
6) Potential Impacts
Steep slopes (areas of 25% slope or greater) exist along the frontage of the site and
adjacent to two ravines that drain the site to Sulfur Spring Run. The applicants are
proposing some disturbance of these areas to implement proffered transportation
improvements, as well as to implement the planned stormwater management system.
Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, any such disturbance or regrading shall be limited to
no more than 25% of the area comprised of steep slopes. The location and scope of the
steep slopes identified on the site do not compromise the suitability of the site for
development. The site engineering process associated with subsequent land
development applications must address the steep slope conditions on the site and
demonstrate that disturbance levels conform with applicable Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
A. Transportation
The applicant has stated that the Carpers Valley project will be served by a multi -model
transportation network designed to safely and efficiently accommodate automobile, bicycle and
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 7
pedestrian traffic. The transportation improvement program proffered will interconnect the
various uses planned within the project, and further integrate the project with the surrounding
community. The implementation of this program will occur in phases structured to coincide
with the introduction of land uses on the site, as specified by proffer.
Access to the subject parcels would be a single entrance on Route 50 at Sulfur Springs Road,
and an entrance onto Prince Frederick Drive. These two entrance points would be linked by a
major collector road "Coverstone Drive with a hiker/biker trail running parallel.
The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application calculated transportation impacts
based upon the following development program:
e Residential 487 multi- family units and 263 townhouses 750 dwelling units)
Office: 1,200,000 square feet (Scenario #1 office and residential)
Retail: 620,000 square feet (Scenario #2 retail and residential)
Using traffic generation figures from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6 Edition, the applicant
projects traffic impacts for the development in terms of two phases that correspond with years
2008 and 2010. For the purposes of this TIA, 2010 represents when build out will occur. Two
scenarios have been modeled to reflect the potential use of the property for office and/or retail.
The TIA indicates that at project build out, the planned uses will result in the generation of
14,405 ADT (Scenario #1) and 27,598 ADT (Scenario #2). The infrastructure policies of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan stipulate that new development should only occur if roads adjacent
to and within new development will function at Level of Service (LOS) Category "C" or better.
In each scenario, the applicant has proffered to implement the necessary improvements to
maintain LOS C at the key identified intersections scoped in the TIA.
The intersections studied include: Route 50 at Prince Frederick Drive; Prince Frederick Drive at
Costello Drive; Prince Frederick Drive at future Coverstone Drive; Route 50 at future
Coverstone Drive /Sulfur Spring Road; and Route 50 at Victory Road. The proffered
improvements include: signalization and lane enhancements.
In addition to the intersection improvements, the applicant has proffered to construct a 4 -lane
raised median major collector road "Coverstone Drive linking Sulfur Springs Road to Prince
Frederick Drive through the subject parcels, implementing a planned collector road The
applicant has also proffered monetary contributions to extend Coverstone Drive west to intersect
with a future realigned Route 522, if and when the necessary right -of -way is available.
The applicant has proffered to eliminate the existing median crossover on Millwood Pike at the
Carpers Valley Golf Course entrance and to establish no new connections to Route 50 other
than the extension of Sulfur Spring Road onto the subject parcels such extension would be
called Coverstone Drive.
o Staff comments and issues:
The applicant has not secured all the necessary right -of -ways to facilitate the TIA identified
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 8
road improvements. By proffer (see proffered condition 16.9), the applicant has stated that if
unable to secure the off -site right -of -way required for the completion ofroad improvements, the
road improvements would not be required of the applicant, unless governmental authority
("their powers of eminent domain') is implemented to secure the necessary right -of -way.
Failure to secure the right -of -way will significantly impact the TIA results and LOS.
Pursuant to adopted transportation policy, roads located adjacent to and within new
development are expected to operate at no less than a Level of Service "C" (Comprehensive
Policy Plan, p. 7 -5). As noted above, the transportation improvements proffered by the
applicants achieve this standard with each phase of development, if the necessary right -of -way
is secured by the applicant.
B. Sewer and Water
The applicant states that the existing golf course use is served by an 8" sewer line that ties into
the 12" sewer main located on the south side of Millwood Pike along the frontage of the site.
This infrastructure will be expanded pursuant to Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA)
requirements to serve the entire site and enable gravity flow to the existing main. The ultimate
sewage conveyance impact at project build -out is projected to be 302,500 gallons per day
(GPD).
The applicant notes that a 12" water main currently extends through the central portion of the
site. The proposed development would connect directly to this existing line pursuant to FCSA
requirements. The applicants report that FCSA has indicated that sufficient water capacity
exists to serve the project.
C. Historic Resources
As reported by the applicants, the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey includes one
structure located on the site, which is identified as the Heishland House 34- 1176). However,
this structure is neither included on the list of potentially significant resources nor is it identified
as eligible for eventual inclusion on the state or national register of historic places. Moreover,
pursuant to the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of
Virginia, the subject site is not included in any battlefield study area and does not contain any
core battlefield resources.
D. Community Facilities
The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model projects a net positive fiscal
impact from the project at project build -out. Failure to phase in the non residential land uses
could result in a negative fiscal impact as the fiscal benefits of the non residential land uses
would not be realized. As such, the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $2,637
per residential unit to mitigate the potential negative fiscal impacts.
a Staff comments and issues:
This mixed use project, at build -out, could provide for a net positive capital facilities fiscal
impact to the County. If the non residential phase of the project does not materialize, and the
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 9
project is built solely as a 785 residential unit development, the per unit capital facilities fiscal
impact is projected to be $4,174.
E. Permitted Uses
The zoning ordinance permits various uses within the R -4 Zoning District. The applicant has
proposed the development of residential and non residential areas. A Design and Development
Standards manual has been proffered which introduces various housing types which would be
unique to this project: stacked townhouses and 24 -unit condominium and apartment buildings
are just a sampling of the new housing options.
The R -4 Zoning District also permits the various non- residential uses associated with the B1,
B2, B3, and M1 zoning districts. While the intent of this application is to promote the site as an
employment center, with aspects of office and commercial uses, the application does not
prohibit the possibility of introducing industrial uses to the area.
Staff comment and issues: The R -4 District provides maximum flexibility intended to offer the
developer an opportunity to design a unique community. Sans creativity, the R -4 District is not
unlike the traditional RP, Bs, and Ms districts where all uses in the underlying zoning district
are permitted. The applicant is encouraged to consider establishing prohibitions of such uses
that are not appropriate nor intended for this residential and once project.
5) Proffer Statement Dated June 24, 2005, revised July 6, 2005
It is noted that the proffer statement for Carpers Valley is extensive, involving proffered
conditions which includes a design manual and three modification requests. The proffer
statement is fundamentally dependant upon the regulatory flexibility sought through the
modification document. The design manual introduces new housing types, such as
significantly larger apartment buildings, and stacked townhouses.
Given the importance of these requests to the applicant's proffer statement and, therefore, the
overall rezoning proposal, staff has provided a detailed discussion concerning each request.
Modifications Request— included within the Design and Development Standards manual
Per Section 165 -72.0, of the County Code, an applicant may request modifications to
provisions of the Code. Such modifications may be sought to enable implementation of a
design and /or land use concept beneficial to the community that would not otherwise be
permitted by the existing ordinance. The applicant has requested three modifications to
certain provisions of the Frederick County Code.
Modification #1 165 -68. Rezoning Procedure
The R4 District requirements stipulate that a complete Master Development Plan (MDP) shall
be submitted with an application for R4 zoning. The master development plan review
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 10
procedures must be completed concurrently with the consideration of the rezoning, and must be
included as part of the rezoning application.
The applicant is requesting modification of this request to allow submission of a proffered
Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at the time of rezoning instead of the complete MDP.
The GDP would identify the relationship of the project site to the surrounding transportation
network and adjoining land uses. Moreover, the GDP would provide a general layout for the
proposed development, organizing the entire acreage into land bays identified for either
residential or non residential land uses. The applicant would submit the MDP application for
review subsequent to rezoning approval, at which time greater detail concerning land bay
development would be provided
If Modification #1 is approved, a proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) will be
processed with this application instead of a detailed Master Development Plan (MDP). MDP
submission would follow rezoning approval pursuant to the application sequence typical for
development in other zoning districts as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Staff Comment: The applicant has included a proffered Generalized Development
Plan (GDP) with this application and is seeking the requested modification pursuant to
discussions with staff The level of detail required with a complete Master Development Plan
(MDP) is difficult to provide with a rezoning application when considering a project of the
scope and scale of Carpers Valley, especially when the potential federal facility is considered.
A proffered GDP will effectively represent the overall development concept and can sufficiently
guide the implementation of proffered conditions via subsequent development applications.
Modification #2 165 -71. Mixture of Housing Types Required
The R4 District requirements stipulate that no more than 40% of the residential land area in a
planned residential community shall consist of duplexes, multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link
townhouses, townhouses, or garden apartments or any combination of said housing types. The
Zoning Ordinance promotes a residential mix dominated by single family detached housing
types.
The applicant is requesting that this standard be modified to allow housing types identified by
the zoning ordinance and the proffer statement (Design and Development Standards). The
residentially designated areas of the project would be able to develop without limitation to the
percentage or ratio of any given housing type. The development of single family attached
(Townhouses) and multi family dwellings would be the predominant housing type in Carpers
V alley.
If Modification #2 is approved, the project housing type mix will not be regulated by ordinance
nor proffered conditions. This will provide the applicant the greatest flexibility to design and
develop the housing types most appropriate for the market.
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 11
Planning Staff Comment: The current requirement of 165 -71 ensures that single family
detached dwellings will comprise a minimum of 60% of the residential land area in a
planned residential community. As proposed by the applicant, the entire residential site
could be developed into the highest density residential housing type enabled by the zoning
ordinance (16 units per building garden apartments at 10 units per acre). The proffer
statement limits the use of the 24-units-per-building multi -family unit described in the
proffered Design and Development Standard manual to occupy no more than 50 percent of
the total market rate housing units
Modification #3 165 -72.D. Commercial and Industrial Areas;
The R4 District requirements stipulate that a minimum of 10% of the gross area of a planned
residential community shall be used for business and industrial land uses, and that such uses
shall not exceed 50% of the gross land area. Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance requires that each
phase of a planned community development shall include a reasonable amount of non-
residential land uses. These requirements provide the necessary regulations to facilitate a
development with residential and employment which coexist, enabling not only a walkable
community, but also offer opportunities to place residential uses and commercial uses within the
same structure (i.e., retail on first floor, residential on 2nd and 3rd floors).
The applicant is requesting that these standards be modified to allow a maximum of 60% of the
total gross area to be used for business and commercial purposes. This area has been identified
as Land Bay 2 on the GDP.
If Modification #3 is approved, the applicant will be permitted to expand the commercial
development to occupy up to 60% of the project area; industrial uses would continue to be
limited to 50% of the project.
Proffered Conditions dated June 24, 2005 and revised July 6, 2005
The following is a brief summation of the proffered conditions included with the
application.
1) Land Use
a) Establishes that market rate housing shall not exceed 750 dwelling units.
b) Establishes that the 24 -unit- per building multi- family housing type will not exceed
more than 50% of the total dwelling units.
(Staff note: proffer does not limit the use of the traditional garden
apartment on more than 50% of the site, which is enabled by Modification
#2)
2) Workforce Housing
a) Establishes the ability to develop up to 35 residential units for sale to families
with household incomes below the median income of the County.
(Staff note: proffer does not guarantee that any workforce housing will be
built)
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 12
3) Reservation of Land for public use
a) Identifies and reserves for up to 2 years) land for acquisition for federal
b) government use
c) Identifies and reserves (for up to 8 years) land for acquisition by the Airport.
d) Identifies and dedicates approximately 10 acres for use as a National Guard
Armory
4) Phasing of the Development
a) Provides for limitation on the issuance of residential building permits.
Year 2 100 permits.
Year 3 128 permits.
Year 4 240 permits
Year 5 185 permits
Year 6 132 permits
(Staff note: the applicant also provides for the annual accumulation of
permits, which could result in all 785 residential units being built in year 6)
5) Provides for enhance recreation amenities with a community center, pool, and dog park.
These amenities would be constructed by the end of the 4` year of development.
6) Provides for hiker /biker trail adjacent to the planned major collector road.
7) Provides for a per residential unit $2,637 monetary contribution to lessen projected
impacts on capital facilities
(Staff note: If the non residential phase of the project does not materialize,
and the project is built solely as a 750 residential unit development, the per
unit capital facilities fiscal impact is projected to be $4,1 74.
8) Provides for transportation improvements such as:
a) Tree -line 4 -lane raised median major collector road connecting the Sulfur
Springs Road /Route 50 intersection with a future intersection with Prince
Frederick Drive.
(Staff note: the tree lined street is in lieu of the County required Road
Efficiency Buffer)
b) No connections to Millwood Pike (Route 50) other than at the Sulfur Springs
Road intersection.
c) Traffic signal improvements at Sulfur Springs and Route 50; Costello and Prince
Frederick Drives; and Victory Lane and Millwood Pike (Route 50)
d) Future TIA and improvements to reflect changing uses of the property.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 07/20/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This application is a request to rezone approximately 281.5 acres of RA -zoned property to the R4
District to facilitate development of a mixed use development consisting of 785 dwelling units and
143 acres of business and office use opportunities. The Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically
addresses the planned land use of the subject parcels through the policies adopted with the Route 50
East Corridor Land Use Plan. These policies recommend the establishment of business and office
Rezoning #11-05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 13
uses on the parcels. The requested rezoning suggests that an employment center and transitional
residential uses are an appropriate use for the site based on the site's proximity to the Airport, the
Prince Frederick Office Park, and adjoining single family uses.
The R -4 Zoning District is intended to facilitate a planned unit development, where uses are
interspersed, and retail and residential uses intermingle. The Carpers Valley application is more similar
to a B2 and RP request, then a planned unit development. Yet, the proposal certainly attempts to create
a compatible product in a key developing corridor of the County.
Addressing the various agency concerns and issues is the responsibility of the applicant; VDOT and
Airport Authority have yet to offer support of the application. The applicant should be prepared to
address these agency issues, Planning staff comments, as well as all comments offered by the
Planning Commission.
In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning
request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular
attention to the following:
1) The Commission providing concurrence with VDOT that the transportation proffers offered
with the rezoning application are satisfactory.
2) The Applicant's satisfaction of all comments offered by the County Attorney.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 07/20/05 MEETING:
The following airport representatives were present to speak with the Commission: Mr. Mark K. Flynn,
Legal Counsel for the Winchester Regional Airport Authority; Mr. John Longnaker, engineer with Delta
Airport Consultants; Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director of the Winchester Regional Airport; Mr. Joe
Delia, The Federal Aviation Administration's Project Engineer for the Winchester Regional Airport;
and Mr. Randal P. Burdette, Director of the Virginia Department of Aviation. The primary concerns
raised by airport representatives included: opposition to the R4 Zoning designation due to its inclusion
of residential units and opposition to any rezoning request that would include dense housing within the
Airport Support Area; concern that continued residential encroachment would impact the viability and
future expansion of the airport and, eventually, it would have an affect on the airport's funding from the
FAA and the VDOA; the inability of the airport to accept the applicant's offer to purchase the reserved
acreage to the north because of development priorities on the south side of the runway that will require
considerable funding from the FAA/VDOA; if acreage to the north was purchased within the eight -year
time frame, it would require local funding (Frederick Co. and City of Winchester); regarding the
Coverstone Drive extension, the Rt. 522 realignment has not received FAA/VDOA approval; the
realignment of Rt. 522 is contingent on surveys and elevations yet to be conducted and must not
interfere with the airport's approach surfaces. Regarding the public safety building, the airport has
earmarked a five -acre site for a public safety building, however, an agreement has not been finalized, a
site plan has not been reviewed, nor has a lease been negotiated. If a lease is negotiated with Frederick
County, the airport would retain ownership of the land and it would not convey to Frederick County.
There were also concerns regarding the public safety building's 60 -foot right -of -way through the
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 14
airport's property.
Three citizens spoke in opposition to the rezoning request; their opposition was based on their view that
residential use was not compatible with the airport. They were concerned that residential encroachment
would affect the airport's viability and lead to its closing they were concerned about safety for the
residences that would be constructed. One citizen, a partner in the adjacent Blue Ridge industries,
spoke in favor of the rezoning. He rebuked statements that the airport was unsafe for adjacent
residential use and asked if having employees work in the adjacent commercial buildings would also be
considered unsafe. He considered the offer made by the applicant to reserve the acreage for eight years
as a tremendous value to the airport; he remarked that if corporate business was unwilling to step
forward to sign leases to fund the purchase of the acreage, or if the FAA /VDOA didn't consider it a
priority, then perhaps the land was not really needed. He also expressed disappointment that the Airport
Authority would hold 6,000 square feet hostage to the local land transportation needs. The applicant
believed their proposal had met the County's goal for land planning adjacent to the airport. The
applicant expressed the desire to negotiate with the airport; however, they believed that until a decision
was made on the land use issue, negotiations could not go forward.
Discussion and comments by the Planning Commission included: The plan presented was good and
much improved over the previously submitted plan; the plan presented the opportunity for growth
inside the UDA, as opposed to the rural areas; it may not be appropriate to place housing on land
planned for business /office use; no concrete determination has been made by the airport on an
acceptable distance for dwelling units from the runway; distance of' dwelling units from the runway
does not in itself affect funding from the FAA /VDOA; the best use for this area is commercial; the plan
presented the opportunity for affordable housing; and, a significant amount of cooperation between the
developer and airport was needed to make the project work and would result in a win -win situation for
both parties, in addition to the County. One commissioner remarked that if tenants would choose not to
come in the second and third land bays, he would not be in favor of putting more housing within those
bays. Some of the commission members were not in favor of residential housing near the airport
because of its potential impact to the viability of the airport and for safety reasons; one commissioner
preferred to see the County's UDA and RA studies completed before approving the rezoning; a member
cited insufficient data on the quality /quantity of available water and possible DEQ limitations on
discharging into waterways that empty into the Chesapeake Bay.
A majority of the members of the Commission were in support of the overall plan for rezoning and
believed it was appropriate for this location and the timing was right. By a majority vote, the Planning
Commission recommended approval ol'the rezoning with the proffers and conditions discussed, as well
as the three proposed modifications requested by the applicant, as follows:
1) Modification #1: Submission of a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at rezoning, in lieu of
the Master Development Plan (MDP). (The MDP submission will follow rezoning approval,
prior to development of the property.)
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
September 6, 2005
Page 15
2) Modification #2: Allowance of a Mixture of Housing Types; Single- family attached
(townhouses) and multi- family dwellings (apartments) would be predominant.
3) Modification #3: Allowance of a Maximum of 60% of Total Gross Area for Business and
Commercial Purposes.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TOREC. APPROVAL):
NO: Watt, Gochenour, Straub
ABSTAIN: DeHaven, Wilmot
Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas,
(Note: Commissioners Unger, Morris, and Light were absent from the meeting.)
1
REZONING APPLICATION #11 -05
CARPERSVALLEY
Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors
Prepared: August 1, 2005
Staff Contact: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist then in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 07/20/05 Recommended Approval with Proffers
and Conditions
Board of Supervisors: 08/10/05 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned
Community) District for Residential and Commercial Uses.
LOCATION: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side
of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens
Subdivision.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64 -A -82. 64 -A -83, 64- A -83A, 64 -A -86, 64 -A -87. 64 -A -87A
PROPERTY ZONING USE:
Zoned: (Rural Areas) District Use: Gol f Course /Club /Undeveloped
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE:
North: Zoned RP(Residential Performance)
South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas)
East: Zoned M1 (Light Industrial) and
MI-II (Mobile 1-lome Community)
West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and
B2 (Business General)
Use: Single Family Residential
Use: Regional Airport
Use: Industrial and Residential
Use: Regional Airport and Office
PROPOSED USES: 785 Residential units and a 143 acre Employment Center
Rezoning #11 -05. Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The sentence "Coverstone shall be completed in accordance with
the foregoing road phasing schedule" was suddenly added, which would seem to indicate that regardless
if the GSA moves in, Coverstone will only be developed as 2 lanes after 451 dwellings, etc. The whole
point of this section was to assure that Coverstone would be fully constructed to serve GSA traffic;
please remove this sentence to restore the intent ofthe section. 1 understand that there is a new TIA that
reflects the lack of' a connection to Arbor Ct. Please provide a copy at your earliest convenience.
Similarly, although we were told that the right -of -way connection to Prince Frederick was "in the bag",
we still have in indication that this has been acquired. We either need some assurance that you've got
the right -of -way, or prove (via TIA) that it's not necessary (and lose the eminent domain section, since
there's no longer a point in it being there). (E -mail from Scott Alexander of VDOT to Chuck Maddox.
dated July 1, 2005)
Fire Marshal: Extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of
Frederick County Code Section 90 -4. Fire hydrants shall be set at three feet from the curb. Access
requirements shall sleet the minimum requirements of NFPA 1141. Plan approval recommended.
Public Works Department: See letter front Ed Strawsnyder dated June 27, 2005
Frederick County Dept. of Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment at the time
of site plan and subdivision review.
Frederick Winchester Service Authority: Considering the size and multi -use of the property, it is
extremely hard to evaluate the impact with the limited amount of information provided. The applicant
makes claims of capacity without any projections being provided. I would estimate that a project of this
size could generate between 300,000 and 420,000 gallons per day. I believe that this flow will by -pass
the Abrams Creek Interceptor and be delivered to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility through a
proposed regional pumping station. Based on already committed flows to the Opequon facility and
pending final regulations regarding nutrient discharge limits or caps, capacity at OWRF may be limited.
At present without major upgrading of the treatment process and assignment of sufficient nutrient loads
to provide for an expanded facility capacity, availability is questionable.
Sanitation Authority: 1" review No comment.
Department of Parks Recreation: The Master Development Plan references a trail system,
community pool and clubhouse. However, the development should meet all open space and
recreational unit ordinances as required by the county. The monetary proffer would appear to be
acceptable to offset the impact of the development.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the
proposed 500 town houses and 500 multi- family units will yield 65 high school students, 80 middle
school students and 230 elementary school students for a total of 385 new students upon build -out.
Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 3
student enrollments exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project
and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the
area will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student
enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered
during the approval process.
Winchester Regional Airport: See letter from Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director, dated July
18, 2005; letter to Renny Manuel from Randall P. Burdette, Director, Virginia Department of
Aviation, dated July 11, 2005; two letters to Renny Manuel from Joseph B. Delia, Airport Engineer
of Washington Airports District Office, dated July 1, 2005 and July 10, 2002.
Frederick County Attorney: See letter from Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., Esquire, dated July 11, 2005
Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the property rezoning, it appears that the
proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal
review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. As you have indicated in your impact statement,
according to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are 110 significant historic structures located on the
property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National
Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields
that this proposed rezoning would directly impact.
Planning Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the
subject parcels as being zoned R -1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re- mapped from R-
1 to A -2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative
(Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's
agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District
upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989.
The corresponding revision ofthe zoning map resulted in the re- mapping ofthe subject property
and all other A -1 and A -2 zoned land to the RA District.
2) Location
The subject parcels are located on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50/17 Fast) across
from the Ravens and Miller Heights subdivisions and adjacent to the Prince Frederick Office
Park and the Winchester Regional Airport. The VDOT functional classification system
identifies Millwood Pike as a major arterial roadway. The land uses abutting the subject site to
the east and west are industrial and office, respectively, with the Winchester Regional Airport
adjacent to the south and single family residential uses located across Millwood Pike to the
north.
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 4
3) Intended Use
The applicant proposes the development ofa mixed use project; a residential and employment
center. The project would be anchored by roughly 143 acres of commercial uses, initially
reserved for the development of federal government facilities. These commercial uses would be
complemented by moderate to high density residential uses. Through the proffer statement, the
project would be limited to 785 residential units.
Staff Comment: The applicant has utilized the R-4 District designation in an effort to
maximum residential development opportunities while also providing jiff significant I7011-
residential uses. While R -4 is intended a planned community, this project is not unlike a
traditional RP and Commercial /Industrial rezoning application, where the uses are clearly
separate from one another.
Comprehensive Policv Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan. p. 1 -1J
The six properties included with this rezoning request arc all located within the boundaries of
the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. The properties are located wholly within the Urban
Development Area (UDA). The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan envisions the area
comprised by the subject parcels as developing with business /office land use. The Plan
indicates that this planned land use designation is appropriate given the proximity of the area to
the Winchester Regional Airport and the Interstate 81 interchange and the conduciveness of
such locations to non residential development. (Comprehensive Policy Plan. p. 6 -19, 6 -21)
The subject parcels are also located within the boundaries of the Airport Support Area that
surrounds the Winchester Regional Airport. This area comprises a zone of influence for airport
operations wherein new residential land use is discouraged due to the prevalence of aircraft
noise and the consequent potential for use incompatibilities. The development of business and
industrial land uses is promoted within the Airport Support Area to minimize such use conflicts
and ensure the feasibility of future airport expansion. However, in cases where residential
development is permitted within the Airport Support Area, aviation easements and other
protective measures should be considered to safeguard airport operations. (Comprehensive
Policy Plan, p. 6 -61, 6 -63)
Adopted economic policies stipulate that a business climate must be supported in Frederick
County that is conducive to economic activity and orderly economic growth. Critical to the
attainment of this goal is effective land use planning. Diverse locations for business and
industry must be identified that are capable of accommodating the access and infrastructure
needs of such uses while simultaneously ensuring their functional and aesthetic compatibility
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 5
0
with surrounding uses. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 4 -1, 4 -4, 4 -5)
The planned road network included in the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan identifies a
collector road system which provides for an east -west linkage. This planned east -west collector
road should also provide for linkages to the north coinciding with Inverlee Way (a planned
north -south major collector road). These planned road network linkages would both relieve
some pressure from the existing 522/50/81 interchange area, as well as to act as a connector
between the various parcels that would otherwise have utilized Route 50 as their sole means of
ingress and egress. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6- 19,6 -21)
Planning Staff Comment:
While the Comprehensive Policy Plan clearly indicates future uses on the subject parcels to be
business and office uses, the applicant suggests that there could be an opportunity to provide
for transitional residential uses to the existing Single Family (The Ravens) to the north.
Transitional residential uses might include moderate density housing (attached single,family
and multi family), which would lessen conflicts and impacts associated with locating detached
single family uses adjacent to non residential uses. ',Ruch transitional residential uses are to
be considered, all efforts must be made to distance the residential uses from the airport
property.
The Zoning Ordinance states that the residential density in the R -4 Zoning District shall not
exceed a gross density of 4 units per acre. The subject proposal would enable 785 residential
dwellings to be constructed on 11 5 acres, which results in a net density of 6.8 units per acre.
5) Site Suitability /Environment
The subject parcels contain a variety of environmental features to include areas of flood plain,
wetlands, steep slopes, and woodlands.
A. Flood Plains: Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood
Insurance Study Map for Frederick County prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Community Panel #510063- 0115B, effective date July 17,
1978. The majority of the site is located in Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of
minimal flooding outside of the 100 -year flood plain. As reported by the applicants,
100 -year flood plain, Flood Zone A, exists coincident with Sulfur Spring Run, which
traverses the frontage of the site, roughly parallel to Route 50. The applicant indicated
that disturbance will be limited to entrance improvements. Any disturbance within the
designated flood plain area will be subject to the requirements of the Floodplain District
(FP) provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Wetlands: The site includes four identified wetland features, all of which are man -made
ponds associated with the existing golf course use. Pursuant to the environmental
standards of the Zoning Ordinance, disturbance of wetland areas is not permitted.
Exceptions to this prohibition may be granted by the zoning administrator to allow
disturbance of small portions of wetland areas to facilitate conservation, recreation,
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 6
and/or the placement of utilities and roads. Lt is noted that the identified wetland areas
may be preserved through their use as project design features. Such issues may be
adequately addressed during the Master Development Plan process.
C. Soils and Steep Slopes: The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County,
Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-
Berks- Blairton soil association, which is the predominant association on land located
east of Interstate 81. As reported by the applicant, map sheet #36 of the Soil Survey
reveals that the site is comprised of nine distinct soil types. With the exception of a pit
area containing fill materials, all ofthe soil types identified on the site are suitable for
development. It is noted that the Weikert- Berks Blairton soil association presents some
limitations to site development due to a seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and
slope. The management of such characteristics must be demonstrated through the site
engineering process associated with subsequent development applications for the
proposed project.
D. Woodlands: The ravine areas present on the site also contain the majority of identified
woodland resources. As the location ofthe woodland areas generally corresponds with
steep slope areas, it is reasonable to expect the preservation of substantial portions of
identified woodlands to maintain natural stabilization of the protected slopes. The
applicants propose such preservation, but also note that some disturbance will occur to
create buildable lots and to implement proffered transportation improvements and the
stormwater management system. The site engineering process associated with
subsequent land development applications must address woodland resources on the site
and demonstrate that disturbance levels conform with applicable Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
6) Potential Impacts
Steep slopes (areas of 25% slope or greater) exist along the frontage of the site and
adjacent to two ravines that drain the site to Sulfur Spring Run. The applicants are
proposing some disturbance of these areas to implement proffered transportation
improvements, as well as to implement the planned stormwater management system.
Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, any such disturbance or regrading shall be limited to
no more than 25% of the area comprised of steep slopes. The location and scope of the
steep slopes identified on the site do not compromise the suitability of the site for
development. The site engineering process associated with subsequent land
development applications must address the steep slope conditions on the site and
demonstrate that disturbance levels conforni with applicable Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
A. Transportation
The applicant has stated that the Carpers Valley project will be served by a multi -model
transportation network designed to safely and efficiently accommodate automobile, bicycle and
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
August I, 2005
Page 7
pedestrian traffic. The transportation improvement program proffered will interconnect the
various uses planned within the project, and further integrate the project with the surrounding
community. The implementation of this program will occur in phases structured to coincide
with the introduction of land uses on the site, as specified by proffer.
Access to the subject parcels would be a single entrance on Route 50 at Sulfur Springs Road,
and an entrance onto Prince Frederick Drive. These two entrance points would be linked by a
major collector road "Coverstone Drive with a hiker /biker trail running parallel.
The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application calculated transportation impacts
based upon the following development program:
Residential 487 multi family units and 263 townhouses 750 dwelling units)
Office: 1,200,000 square feet (Scenario #1 office and residential)
Retail: 620,000 square feet (Scenario #2 retail and residential)
Using traffic generation figures from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. 6 Edition. the applicant
projects traffic impacts for the development in terms of two phases that correspond with years
2008 and 2010. For the purposes of this TIA, 2010 represents when build out will occur. Two
scenarios have been modeled to reflect the potential use of the property for office and /or retail.
The TIA indicates that at project build out, the planned uses will result in the generation of
14,405 ADT (Scenario #1) and 27,598 ADT (Scenario #2). The infrastructure policies of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan stipulate that new development should only occur ifroads adjacent
to and within new development will function at Level of Service (LOS) Category "C" or better.
In each scenario, the applicant has proffered to implement the necessary improvements to
maintain LOS C at the key identified intersections scoped in the TIA.
The intersections studied include: Route 50 at Prince Frederick Drive; Prince Frederick Drive at
Costello Drive; Prince Frederick Drive at future Coverstone Drive; Route 50 at future
Coverstone Drive /Sulfur Spring Road; and Route 50 at Victory Road. The proffered
improvements include: signalization and lane enhancements.
In addition to the intersection improvements, the applicant has proffered to construct a 4 -lane
raised median major collector road "Coverstone Drive linking Sulfur Springs Road to Prince
Frederick Drive through the subject parcels, implementing a planned collector road. The
applicant has also proffered monetary contributions to extend Coverstone Drive west to intersect
with a future realigned Route 522, if and when the necessary right -of -way is available.
The applicant has proffered to eliminate the existing median crossover on Millwood Pike at the
Carpers Valley Golf Course entrance and to establish no new connections to Route 50 other
than the extension of Sulfur Spring Road onto the subject parcels such extension would be
called Coverstone Drive.
Staffcomments and issues:
The applicant has not secured all the necessary right -of ways ro facilitate the TIA identified
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 8
road improvements. By proffer (see proffered condition 16.9), the applicant has stated that if
unable to secure the offsite right -of -way required for the completion ofroad improvements, the
road improvements would not he required of the applicant, unless governmental authority
(their powers of eminent domain') is implemented to secure the necessary right -of -away.
Failure to secure the right-of-way will significantly impact the TIA results and LOS.
Pursuant lo adopted transportation policy. roads located adjacent to and within new
development are expected to operate al no less than a Level ofService "C" (Comprehensive
Policy Plan, p. 7 -5). As noted above, the transportation improvements proffered by the
applicants achieve this standard with each phase ofdevelopment, the necessaryright -ofway
is secured by the applicant.
B. Sewer and Water
The applicant states that the existing golf course use is served by an 8" sewer line that ties into
the 12" sewer main located on the south side of Millwood Pike along the frontage of the site.
This infrastructure will be expanded pursuant to Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA)
requirements to serve the entire site and enable gravity flow to the existing main. The ultimate
sewage conveyance impact at project build -out is projected to be 302,500 gallons per day
(GPD).
The applicant notes that a 12" water main currently extends through the central portion of the
site. The proposed development would connect directly to this existing line pursuant to FCSA
requirements. The applicants report that FCSA has indicated that sufficient water capacity
exists to serve the project.
C. Historic Resources
As reported by the applicants, the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey includes one
structure located on the site, which is identified as the Heishland House 34-1176). However,
this structure is neither included on the list of potentially significant resources nor is it identified
as eligible for eventual inclusion on the state or national register of historic places. Moreover,
pursuant to the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of
Virginia, the subject site is not included in any battlefield study area and does not contain any
core battlefield resources.
D. Community Facilities
The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model projects a net positive fiscal
impact from the project at project build -out. Failure to phase in the non residential land uses
could result in a negative fiscal impact as the fiscal benefits of the non residential land uses
would not be realized. As such, the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $2,637
per residential unit to mitigate the potential negative fiscal impacts.
Staff comments and iss
This mixed use project, al build -out could provide fhr a net positive capital facilities fiscal
impact to the County. If the non residential phase of the project does not materialize, and the
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 9
1
project is built solely as a 785 residential unit development, the per unit capital facilities, fiscal
impact is projected to be 84,174.
E. Permitted Uses
The zoning ordinance permits various uses within the R -4 Zoning District. The applicant has
proposed the development of residential and non residential areas. A Design and Development
Standards manual has been proffered which introduces various housing types which would be
unique to this project: stacked townhouses and 24 -unit condominium and apartment buildings
are just a sampling of the new housing options.
The R -4 Zoning District also permits the various non residential uses associated with the B1,
B2, B3, and M1 zoning districts. While the intent of this application is to promote the site as an
employment center, with aspects of office and commercial uses, the application does not
prohibit the possibility of introducing industrial uses to the area.
Staff comment and issues: The R -4 District provides maximunr,flexibili/y intended to offer the
developer ern opport 10 design a unique connnunity. Sams creativity, the R -4 District is not
unlike the traditional RP, Bs, and Ms districts where all uses in the underlying zoning district
are permitted. The applicant is encouraged to consider establishing prohibitions of such uses
that are not appropriate nor intended for this residential and office project.
5) Proffer Statement Dated June 24, 2005, revised July 6, 2005
It is noted that the proffer statement for Carpers Valley is extensive, involving proffered
conditions which includes a design manual and three modification requests. The proffer
statement is fundamentally dependant upon the regulatory flexibility sought through the
modification document. The design manual introduces new housing types, such as
significantly larger apartment buildings, and stacked townhouses.
Given the importance of these requests to the applicant's proffer statement and, therefore, the
overall rezoning proposal, staff has provided a detailed discussion concerning each request.
Modifications Request included within the Design and Development Standards manual
Per Section 165 -72.0, of the County Code, an applicant may request modifications to
provisions of the Code. Such modifications may be sought to enable implementation of a
design and /or land use concept beneficial to the community that would not otherwise be
permitted by the existing ordinance. The applicant has requested three modifications to
certain provisions of the Frederick County Code.
Modification #1 165 -68. Rezoning Procedure
The R4 District requirements stipulate that a complete Master Development Plan (MDP) shall
be submitted with an application for R4 zoning. The master development plan review
Rezoning #I1 -05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 10
procedures must be completed concurrently with the consideration of the rezoning, and must be
included as part of the rezoning application.
The applicant is requesting modification of this request to allow submission of a proffered
Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at the time of rezoning instead of the complete MDP.
The GDP would identify the relationship of the project site to the surrounding transportation
network and adjoining land uses. Moreover, the GDP would provide a general layout for the
proposed development, organizing the entire acreage into land bays identified for either
residential or non residential land uses. The applicant would submit the MDP application for
review subsequent to rezoning approval, at which time greater detail concerning land bay
development would be provided
If Modification #1 is approved, a proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) will be
processed with this application instead of a detailed Master Development Plan (MDP). MDP
submission would follow rezoning approval pursuant to the application sequence typical for
development in other zoning districts as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Staff Comment: The applicant has included a proffered Generalized Development
Plan (GDP) with this application and is seeking the requested modification pursuant to
discussions with stuff The level of detail required with a complete Master Development Plan
(MDP) is dicult to provide with a rezoning application when considering a project of the
scope and scale ofcarpers Valley, especially when the potential federal facility is considered.
A proffered GDP will effectively represent the overall development concept and can sufficiently
guide the implementation of proffered conditions via subsequent development applications.
Modification #2 165 -71. Mixture of Housing; Types Required
The R4 District requirements stipulate that no more than 40% of the residential land area in a
planned residential community shall consist of duplexes, multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link
townhouses, townhouses, or garden apartments or any combination of said housing types. The
Zoning Ordinance promotes a residential mix dominated by single family detached housing
types.
The applicant is requesting that this standard be modified to allow housing types identified by
the zoning ordinance and the proffer statement (Design and Development Standards). The
residentially designated areas of the project would be able to develop without limitation to the
percentage or ratio of any given housing type. The development of single family attached
(Townhouses) and multi family dwellings would be the predominant housing type in Carpers
Valley.
If Modification #2 is approved, the project housing type mix will not be regulated by ordinance
nor proffered conditions. This will provide the applicant the greatest flexibility to design and
develop the housing types most appropriate for the market.
Rezoning #11-05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 11
Planning Stu f Comment The current requirement of 165 -71 ensures that single family
detached dwellings will comprise a minimum of 60% oldie residential land area in a
planned residential community. As proposed by the applicant, the entire residential site
could be developed into the highest density residential housing type enabled by the zoning
ordinance (16 units per building garden apartments at 10 units per acre). The proffer
.statement limits the use of the 24- units- per building multi family unit described in the
proffered Design and Development Standard manual to occupy no more than 50 percent o f
the total market rate housing units
Modification #3 165 -72.D. Commercial and Industrial Areas:
The R4 District requirements stipulate that a minimum of 10% of the gross area of a planned
residential community shall be used for business and industrial land uses, and that such uses
shall not exceed 50% of the gross and area. Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance requires that each
phase of a planned community development shall include a reasonable amount of non-
residential land uses. These requirements provide the necessary regulations to facilitate a
development with residential and employment which coexist, enabling not only a walkable
community, but also offer opportunities to place residential uses and commercial uses within the
same structure (i.e., retail on first floor, residential on 2nd and 3rd floors).
The applicant is requesting that these standards be modified to allow a maximum of 60% of the
total gross area to be used for business and commercial purposes. This area has been identified
as Land Bay 2 on the GDP.
If Modification #3 is approved, the applicant will be permitted to expand the commercial
development to occupy up to 60% of the project area; industrial uses would continue to be
limited to 50% of the project.
Proffered Conditions dated June 24, 2005 and revised July 6, 2005
The following is a brief summation of the proffered conditions included with the
application.
1) Land Use
a) Establishes that market rate housing shall not exceed 750 dwelling units.
b) Establishes that the 24 -unit- per building multi- family housing type will not exceed
more than 50% of the total dwelling units.
(Staff note: proffer does not limit the use of the traditional garden
apartment on more than 50% of the site, which is enabled by Modification
#2)
2) Workforce 1- lousing
a) Establishes the ability to develop up to 35 residential units for sale to families
with household incomes below the median income of the County.
3) Reservation of Land for public use
a) Identifies and reserves for up to 2 )tears) land for acquisition for federal
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 12
b) government use
c) Identifies and reserves (for up to 8 years) land for acquisition by the Airport.
d) Identifies and dedicates approximately 10 acres for use as a National Guard
Armory
4) Phasing of the Development
a) Provides for limitation on the issuance of residential building permits.
Year 2 100 permits.
Year 3 128 permits.
Year 4 240 permits
Year 5 185 permits
Year 6 132 permits
(Staff note: the applicant also provides for the annual accumulation of
permits, which could result in all 785 residential units being built in year 6)
5) Provides for enhance recreation amenities with a community center, pool, and dog park.
These amenities would be constructed by the end of the 4 year of development.
6) Provides for hiker /biker trail adjacent to the planned major collector road.
7) Provides for a per residential unit $2,637 monetary contribution to lessen projected
impacts on capital facilities
(Staff note: If the non residential phase of the project does not materialize,
and the project is built solely as a 750 residential unit development, the per
unit capital facilities fiscal impact is projected to be $4,1 74.
8) Provides for transportation improvements such as:
a) Tree -line 4 -lane raised median major collector road connecting the Sulfur
Springs Road/Route 50 intersection with a future intersection with Prince
Frederick Drive.
(Staff note: the tree lined street is in lieu of the County required Road
Efficiency Buffer)
b) No connections to Millwood Pike (Route 50) other than at the Sulfur Springs
Road intersection.
c) Traffic signal improvements at Sulfur Springs and Route 50; Costello and Prince
Frederick Drives; and Victory Lane and Millwood Pike (Route 50)
d) Future TIA and improvements to retlect changing uses of the property.
STAFF' CONCLUSIONS FOR 07/20/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This application is a request to rezone approximately 281.5 acres of RA -zoned property to the R4
District to facilitate development of a mixed use development consisting of 785 dwelling units and
143 acres of business and office use opportunities. The Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically
addresses the planned land use of the subject parcels through the policies adopted with the Route 50
East Corridor Land Use Plan. These policies recommend the establishment of business and office
uses on the parcels. The requested rezoning suggests that an employment center and transitional
residential uses are an appropriate use for the site based on the site's proximity to the Airport, the
Prince Frederick Office Park, and adjoining single family uses.
Rezoning #11 -05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 13
The R -4 Zoning District is intended to facilitate a planned unit development, where uses are
interspersed, and retail and residential uses intermingle. The Carpers Valley application is more similar
to a B2 and RP request, then a planned unit development. Yet, the proposal certainly attempts to create
a compatible product in a key developing corridor of the County.
Addressing the various agency concerns and issues is the responsibility of the applicant; VDOT and
Airport Authority have yet to offer support of the application. The applicant should be prepared to
address these agency issues_ Planning staff continents, as well as all comments offered by the
Planning Commission.
In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning
request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular
attention to the following:
1) The Commission providing concurrence with VDOT that the transportation proffers offered
with the rezoning application are satisfactory.
2) The Applicant's satisfaction of all comments offered by the County Attorney.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 07/20/05 MEETING:
The following airport representatives were present to speak with the Commission: Mr. Mark K. Flynn,
Legal Counsel for the Winchester Regional Airport Authority; Mr. John Longnaker, engineer with Delta
Airport Consultants; Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director of the Winchester Regional Airport; Mr. Joe
Delia, The Federal Aviation Administration's Project Engineer for the Winchester Regional Airport;
and Mr. Randal P. Burdette, Director of the Virginia Department of Aviation. The primary concerns
raised by airport representatives included: opposition to the R4 Zoning designation due to its inclusion
of residential units and opposition to any rezoning request that would include dense housing within the
Airport Support Area; concern that continued residential encroachment would impact the viability and
future expansion of the airport and, eventually, it would have an affect on the airport's funding from the
FAA and the VDOA; the inability of the airport to accept the applicant's offer to purchase the reserved
acreage to the north because of development priorities on the south side of the runway that will require
considerable funding from the FAA/VDOA, i f acreage to the north was purchased within the eight -year
time frame, it would require local funding (Frederick Co. and City of Winchester); regarding the
Coverstone Drive extension. the Rt. 522 realignment has not received FAA /VDOA approval; the
realignment of Rt. 522 is contingent on surveys and elevations yet to be conducted and must not
interfere with the airport's approach surfaces. Regarding the public safety building, the airport has
earmarked a five -acre site for a public safety building, however, an agreement has not been finalized, a
site plan has not been reviewed nor has a lease been negotiated. I f a lease is negotiated with Frederick
County, the airport would retain ownership of the land and it would not convey to Frederick County.
There were also concerns regarding the public safety building's 60 -foot right -of -way through the
airport's property.
Three citizens spoke in opposition to the rezoning request; their opposition was based on their view that
residential use was not compatible with the airport. They were concerned that residential encroachment
Rezoning #11 -05. Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 14
would affect the airport's viability and lead to its closing; they were concerned about safety for the
residences that would be constructed. One citizen, a partner in the adjacent Blue Ridge Industries,
spoke in favor of the rezoning. He rebuked statements that the airport was unsafe for adjacent
residential use and asked if having employees work in the adjacent commercial buildings would also be
considered unsafe. He considered the offer made by the applicant to reserve the acreage for eight years
as a tremendous value to the airport; he remarked that if corporate business was unwilling to step
forward to sign leases to fund the purchase of the acreage, or if the FAA /VDOA didn't consider it a
priority, then perhaps the land was not really needed. He also expressed disappointment that the Airport
Authority would hold 6,000 square feet hostage to the local land transportation needs.
The applicant believed their proposal had niet the County's goal for land planning adjacent to the
airport. The applicant expressed the desire to negotiate with the airport; however, they believed that
until a decision was made on the land use issue, negotiations could not go forward.
Discussion and comments by the Planning Commission included: The plan presented was good and
much improved over the previously- submitted plan; the plan presented the opportunity for growth
inside the UDA, as opposed to the rural areas; it may not be appropriate to place housing on land
planned for business /office use; no concrete determination has been made by the airport on an
acceptable distance for dwelling units from the runway; distance of dwelling units from the runway
does not in itself affect funding from the FAA /VDOA; the best use for this area is commercial; the plan
presented the opportunity for affordable housing; and, a significant amount of cooperation between the
developer and airport was needed to make the project work and would result in a win -win situation for
both parties, in addition to the County. One commissioner remarked that if tenants would choose not to
come in the second and third land bays, he would not be in favor of putting more housing within those
bays. Some of the commission members were not in favor of residential housing near the airport
because of its potential impact to the viability of the airport and for safety reasons; one commissioner
preferred to see the County's UDA and RA studies completed before approving the rezoning; a member
cited insufficient data on the quality /quantity of available water and possible DEQ limitations on
discharging into waterways that empty into the Chesapeake Bay.
A majority of the members of the Commission were in support of the overall plan for rezoning and
believed it was appropriate for this location and the timing was right. By a majority vote, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with the proffers and conditions discussed, as well
as the three proposed modifications requested by the applicant, as follows:
1) Modification #1: Submission ofa Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at rezoning, in lieu of
the Master Development Plan (MDP). (The MDP submission will follow rezoning approval,
prior to development of the property.)
2) Modification #2: Allowance of a Mixture of Housing Types; Single family attached
(townhouses) and multi family dwellings (apartments) would be predominant.
3) Modification #3: Allowance of a Maximum of 60% of Total Gross Area for Business and
Commercial Purposes.
Rezoning #11-05, Carpers Valley
August 1, 2005
Page 15
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. APPROVAL):
NO: Watt, Gochenour, Straub
AI3STAIN: DeHaven_ Wilmot
Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours. Thomas,
(Note: Commissioners Unger. Morris. and Light were absent from the meeting.)
Capers Valley Rezoning
Unresolved Issues- Review Agency and PC identified issues
July 25, 2005
Transportation. The applicant has not secured all the necessary right -of -ways to facilitate the TIA
identified road improvements. By proffer (see proffered condition 16.9), the applicant has stated that
if unable to secure the off -site right -of -way required for the completion of road improvements, the
road improvements would not be required of the applicant, unless governmental authority ("their
powers of eminent domain is implemented to secure the necessary right -of -way.
o Failure to secure the right -of -way will significantly impact the TIA results and LOS. Per VDOT
comment, this issue is to be resolved prior to the BOS meeting. Without resolution, VDOT does not
support the application.
o Coverstone Drive design. Needs clarification that the road would be a 4 -lane raised landscape median
roadway, built entirely by the applicant.
o Coverstone Drive construction. Not clear if and when applicant will build a 4 -lane road. Implied
through proffers but not expressly set forth.
Phased Development Non- residential vs. Residential uses. The proffer has not phased residential
and non residential uses. Therefore, there are no assurances that non residential development will
occur to offset the fiscal impacts of the residential development. If the non residential phase of the
project does not materialize, and the project is built solely as a 785 residential unit development, the
per unit capital facilities fiscal impact is projected to be $4,174. The applicant has proffered $2,637.
Modification #2 Mixture of Housing Type. Would enable the entire site to be developed into multi-
family structures (i.e. apartment buildings). While the applicant has proffered a limitation on the
development of a 24 unit multi family building, there are no limitations on the use of the Zoning
Ordinance allowed 12 unit garden apartment building.
Work Force Housing. Via proffer, the applicant has established the ability to develop up to 35
workforce housing unit. But, the applicant has not proffered that they would actually build these units.
o County Attorney comments seek additional clarification regarding the work force housing:
implementation; management; establishment of a sales price; type of housing unit; location
(segregated or integrated)
Land Reservation. Applicant does not dedicate land, nor specify future purchase price of the 'reserved
land'. Future acquisition of land would be open for negotiation; quite possibly a negotiation that
purchaser (Airport or GSA) may determine to be priced higher than assessed and appraised values.
Therefore, unable to purchase
Fire and Rescue contributions. $0.00 proffered to offset non residential development on F/R service
demands at buildings' construction.
Administration Building contribution. Clarification that the monetary proffer for the administration
building is based on a "per dwelling unit
Capers Valley Rezoning
Unresolved Issues- Review Agency and PC identified issues
July 25, 2005
Transportation. The applicant has not secured all the necessary right -of -ways to facilitate the TIA
identified road improvements. By proffer (see proffered condition 16.9), the applicant has stated that
if unable to secure the off -site right -of -way required for the completion of road improvements, the
road improvements would not be required of the applicant, unless governmental authority "their
powers of eminent domain") is implemented to secure the necessary right -of -way.
oFailure to secure the right -of -way will significantly impact the TIA results and LOS. Per VDOT
comment, this issue is to be resolved prior to the BOS meeting. Without resolution, VDOT does not
support the application.
o Coverstone Drive design. Needs clarification that the road would be a 4 -lane raised landscape median
roadway, built entirely by the applicant.
o Coverstone Drive construction. Not clear if and when applicant will build a 4 -lane road Implied
through proffers but not expressly set forth.
Phased Development Non residential vs. Residential uses. The proffer has not phased residential
and non residential uses. Therefore, there are no assurances that non residential development will
occur to offset the fiscal impacts of the residential development. If the non residential phase of the
project does not materialize, and the project is built solely as a 785 residential unit development, the
per unit capital facilities fiscal impact is projected to be $4,174. The applicant has proffered $2,637.
Modification #2 Mixture of Housing Type. Would enable the entire site to be developed into multi-
family structures (i.e. apartment buildings). While the applicant has proffered a limitation on the
development of a 24 unit multi family building, there are no limitations on the use of the Zoning
Ordinance allowed 12 unit garden apartment building.
Work Force Housing. Via proffer, the applicant has established the ability to develop up to 35
workforce housing unit. But, the applicant has not proffered that they would actually build these units.
o County Attorney comments seek additional clarification regarding the work force housing:
implementation; management; establishment of a sales price; type of housing unit; location
(segregated or integrated)
Land Reservation. Applicant does not dedicate land, nor specify future purchase price of the 'reserved
land'. Future acquisition of land would be open for negotiation; quite possibly a negotiation that
purchaser (Airport or GSA) may determine to be priced higher than assessed and appraised values.
Therefore, unable to purchase.
Fire and Rescue contributions. $0.00 proffered to offset non residential development on F/R service
demands at buildings' construction.
Administration Building contribution. Clarification that the monetary proffer for the administration
building is based on a "per dwelling unit".
Capers Valley Rezoning
Unresolved Issues- Review Agency and PC identified issues
July 25, 2005
Transportation. The applicant has not secured all the necessary right -of -ways to facilitate the TIA
identified road improvements. By proffer (see proffered condition 16.9), the applicant has stated that
if unable to secure the off -site right -of -way required for the completion of road improvements, the
road improvements would not be required of the applicant, unless governmental authority ("their
powers of eminent domain is implemented to secure the necessary right -of -way.
o Failure to secure the right -of -way will significantly impact the TIA results and LOS. Per VDOT
comment, this issue is to be resolved prior to the BOS meeting. Without resolution, VDOT does not
support the application.
o Coverstone Drive design. Needs clarification that the road would be a 4 -lane raised landscape median
roadway, built entirely by the applicant.
o Coverstone Drive construction. Not clear if and when applicant will build a 4 -lane road. Implied
through proffers but not expressly set forth.
Phased Development Non residential vs. Residential uses. The proffer has not phased residential
and non residential uses. Therefore, there are no assurances that non residential development will
occur to offset the fiscal impacts of the residential development. If the non residential phase of the
project does not materialize, and the project is built solely as a 785 residential unit development, the
per unit capital facilities fiscal impact is projected to be $4,174. The applicant has proffered $2,637.
Modification #2 Mixture of Housing Type. Would enable the entire site to be developed into multi-
family structures (i.e. apartment buildings). While the applicant has proffered a limitation on the
development of a 24 unit multi family building, there are no limitations on the use of the Zoning
Ordinance allowed 12 unit garden apartment building.
Work Force Housing. Via proffer, the applicant has established the ability to develop up to 35
workforce housing unit. But, the applicant has not proffered that they would actually build these units.
o County Attorney comments seek additional clarification regarding the work force housing:
implementation; management; establishment of a sales price; type of housing unit; location
(segregated or integrated)
Land Reservation. Applicant does not dedicate land, nor specify future purchase price of the 'reserved
land'. Future acquisition of land would be open for negotiation; quite possibly a negotiation that
purchaser (Airport or GSA) may determine to be priced higher than assessed and appraised values.
Therefore, unable to purchase.
Fire and Rescue contributions. $0.00 proffered to offset non residential development on F/R service
demands at buildings' construction.
Administration Building contribution. Clarification that the monetary proffer for the administration
building is based on a "per dwelling unit
Patton Harris Rust Associates,pc
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
P
To:
Organization /Company:
Address.
Telephone Number:
Date:
From:
Project Name /Subject:
Via:
Quantity File
1
1
1
1
69
117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, V irginia 22601
T 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
Eric Lawrence
Frederick County Planning Department
107 N. Kent Street
Wmchester, VA 22601
540- 665 -5651
June 27, 2005
Chris Mohn
Transmittal
Carpers Valley Rezoning Final Proffers (signed /notarized)
Internal Project File
Date
Description
Original Proffer Statement
Signed and Notarized
Original Design and Development Standards
Manual (proffer attachment)
Original Master Development Plan Four
Sheet Set 11 "x 17" (proffer attachment)
Original Master Development Plan Four
Sheet Set 24 "x 36" (proffer attachment)
Copies of Master Development Plan
Four Sheet Set 11" x 17"
Notes:
Eric Included with this transmittal is the signed /notarized proffer statement with
original copies of the proffered attachments /exhibits for the Carpers Valley rezoning.
The Design and Development Standards manual is being reproduced by Valley Blue, and
69 bound copies should be ready for delivery within the next couple days. Thanks for
your patience and assistance with this application. Best Chris
Transmitted
Herewith
Under separate cover
Material
Originals
Photocopies
Diskette
Shop Drawings
Mylar
Ozalid Prints
Invoice
Sepia
Purpose
Approval
Please Return:
Corrected Prints
Please Submit:
Revised Prints